IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16466 of 2008(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. SOUDHA, D/O.MOIDEEN, KAILOTTUPOYIL HOUSE MEPPAYUR POST, KOZHIKODE-673524. 2. VAHEEDHA, D/O.MOIDEEN, KALLOTTUPOYIL, MEPPAYUR POST, KOZHIKODE 3. FAREEDHA, D/O.MOIDEEN, KALLOTTUPOYIL HOUSE, MEPPAYUR POST, KOZHIKODE-673 524. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION TALUK DEPOT., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R.1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P (C) .No.16466 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners submit that the petitioners are constructing a building so as to lease it out to the respondent. According to the petitioners, the building is nearing completion. However, it would take some more time to complete the same. In the meanwhile, the respondent is not willing to wait any further. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have approached this court seeking the following relief: “issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to grant 45 days time to the petitioners considering Ext.P3 so as to complete the construction and hand over the agreed premises to open Sabari Supermarket of Supplyco;” 2. The respondent has filed a statement in which they would state that they had agreed to take the building on lease if the petitioner completes construction and hands over possession within a reasonable time. They would further submit that the petitioners were given several W.P (C) .No.16466 of 2008 - 2 - extensions of time as requested by the petitioners for completing the building and handing it over to the respondent for occupation. According to them, going by the progress in construction, they are not likely to get possession of the building anywhere in the near future. Therefore, according to the respondent, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for. I am of opinion that this is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the respondent to decide as to whether they should wait any further for completion of the building for taking it on lease. Therefore it is up to the petitioners to approach the respondent for appropriate relief in the matter and it is for the respondent to consider the same in accordance with the urgency of their requirement. With the above observation the writ petition is closed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs