IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 35754 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.A. SAIDALAVI , AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, PARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNDOOR KARA, VIA PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER, SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I. DIVISION PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINGEER, M.I.SECTION, SHORNUR. 3. P.RAVI, S/O. PARANGODAN, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.MANNANNORE (VIA) KAVALAPPARA, VANIYAMKULAM VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 35754/2008-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/04/2007 ENTRUSTING THE WORK BY NAME 'URGENT REPAIR WORKS TO MAIN CANAL OF LI SCHEME' MANNANNORE IN VANIYAMKULAM PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 03/04/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 08/04/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10/01/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/01/2008 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 35754 of 2008-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a contractor, is seeking for a direction to the respondents to take out the measurement of the work already done by the petitioner and to disburse the bill amount without any delay. 2. The work in question is “urgent repair works to main canal of L.I. Scheme” Mannannore in Vanimyamkulam Panchayat.” The agreement was executed on 27.4.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that as directed by the Assistant Engineer, the work was started on the northern side and for that the petitioner had to unload all the materials supplied from the site pointed out earlier. The petitioner could not continue the work even though 95% of the work was over, due to an obstruction by the concerned member of the Panchayat. Ext.P1 is the order by which the work was entrusted to the petitioner. It appears that the work had to be stopped for five days in view of certain instructions by the Assistant Executive Engineer. According to the petitioner, the work was again started after settling the dispute and work site was changed. Exts.P2 to P6 have been produced to show that the petitioner had to abandon the work after completion of certain wpc 35754/2008 2 parts in view of some developments also. It is alleged that due to this, he lost about Rs.3 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayers of the petitioner. In para 6 it is pointed out that the agreement period expired on 21.8.2007 and the petitioner was not permitted to resume the work after 21.8.2007. It is also mentioned in para 8 that no application for extension of time was received and ultimately it is stated that an amount of Rs.66,000/- has to be recovered from the petitioner towards the cost of 20 MT department cement. 4. Evidently, the matter concerns the liability of the respondents under an agreement executed between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 herein. Therefore, the liability, if any, is contractual only. Various aspects have been disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. As noted already, the respondents have taken a stand that amounts are due to them from the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case where the case pleaded by the petitioner are admitted by the respondents for enabling this Court to pass a consequential direction as sought for by the petitioner. Since disputed facts are involved, which cannot be resolved in this writ petition, wpc 35754/2008 3 the petitioner will have to avail other legal remedies. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail other remedies, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/