IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17005 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANDEEP.T.S., S/O.SUKUMARAN, THERULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIZHALA, KADAMAKKUDI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE MISSION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION (NRHM), TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION (NRHM), PALLIYIL LANE, NEAR BHARATH TOURIST HOME, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PIZHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. MOHANAN, S/O.RAMAN, PALIYAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O., PALIYAMTHURUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-682027. ADDL.R6. 6. VARUN M. S/O MOHANAN V.R. VALIYA VEETIL, PIZHALA, EKM DISTRICT ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR ADDL.R6. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MIS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17005/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner was awarded a contract for running a boat service, as part of the services rendered by the State Rural Health Mission, subject to certain conditions, as contained in Ext.R3(a). Petitioner's agreement was terminated as evidenced by Ext.R3(d). This was issued on 15.5.2009, and received by an authorized representative of the petitioner on the same day and by the petitioner himself on 23.5.2009. This writ petition filed on 18.6.2009 does not mount a challenge to Ext.R3(d) proceedings under which the petitioner's agreement has been terminated. 2. Subsequently a fresh contract has been awarded in favour of the additional 6th respondent, who claims that he is not operating on account of the interim order passed by this Court. In circumstances where the petitioner's agreement has been terminated and there is no challenge to such termination in this writ petition, I do not find my way to issue a direction to the respondents. It is W.P.(C).17005/09 2 accordingly dismissed and the interim orders passed are vacated. 3. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not prejudice the right of the petitioner if any, to challenge the validity of Ext.R3(a). It is also made clear that any such challenge mounted by the petitioner shall obviously be with notice to the additional 6th respondent also. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs