IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 10738 of 2007(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PAILY ABRAHAM, S/O. PAILY,AGED 52 YEARS, ERUMBAYIL, KUNNACKAL P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.PAULOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PIRAVOM. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KADATHURUTHY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10738/2007-C: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF AGREEMENT NO. 58/04-05/EE/PVM DTD. 01/02/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE 6TH PAGE OF THE WORK SCHEDULE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/07/2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/10/2006 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/02/07 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 19/02/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 10738 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be a contractor of the respondents and had undertaken certain works. Irrespective of who is responsible for it, the fact remains that without completing the work, the petitioner had stopped the work. In this writ petition what is sought for is an order requiring respondents 2 and 3 to finalise the measurement of the works referred to Ext.P1 and also to release the security deposit and other payments due. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The averment of the petitioner that he discontinued the work on the instructions of the 2nd respondent is denied. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner had committed breach of contract and that if the petitioner is willing to resume the work, they are ready to permit the petitioner to complete the work provided he does not claim any escalation in rates. This does not appear to be acceptable to the petitioner who contends that on account of the long lapse of time for which he is not responsible, unless rates are WP(C) 10738/07 Page numbers revised, it will not be possible to complete the work. 3. From the facts as stated above and the other pleadings made by both sides, it is obvious that the writ petition involves disputed questions such as whether breach of contract was committed, whether discontinuance was at the instance of the 2nd respondent and whether the petitioner is entitled to escalation in rates. These are matters which cannot be decided in a writ petition. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the respondents and has any legitimate claim, it is for the petitioner to establish such claim in a properly instituted suit. Writ petition is not the remedy and for that reason I decline to exercise the writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-