IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 526 of 2010 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24483/2009 Dated 26/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------------ A.JOHN,PROPRIETOR, ANSONS GROUP, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS,UNION AUTO BUILDING, MUNICIPAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC ------------------------------------------- 1. THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,IRINJALAKUDA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,IRINJALAKUDA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, BARTON HILL,KUNNUKUZHY POST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.526 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 26th August, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.24483 of 2009, the petitioner therein preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The writ petition was filed with the prayers as follows: “i. to declare that petitioner is entitled to get his professional fee and its service tax from 1st respondent for the architectural works executed, at the rate provided in clause-1 of the agreement executed on 22.06.01 and in compliance with the rate prescribed in Ext-P4 Government order. ii. to call for the records leading to Exts-P8, P8A and Ext-P11 order and quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari; iii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2, W.A. No.526 of 2010 - 2 - directing them to pay the balance professional fee of Rs.8.5 lakhs due to petitioner along with proper service tax and also Rs.49,752.50 towards professional fee for the extra drawings prepared and supplied in connection with the fire-fighting and electrical installations of the project, along with 12% interest from 29.08.2003, and iv. to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of the case, including the costs of the petitioner in this proceeding.” 3. In substance, it is obvious from the prayer extracted above that the appellant is seeking a money decree. By judgment dated 26th August, 2009, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition preserving the right of the writ petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the civil court. 4. It is well settled that the forum under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is most inappropriate for adjudicating a claim such as the one put forward in the instant W.A. No.526 of 2010 - 3 - writ petition which requires adjudication of contractual rights and establishment of facts. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns