IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3865 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.ANTONY, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, THEKKANATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., E RNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.IMTHIAZ AHAMED SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN CORPORATION, KOCHI-11. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC FOR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3865 of 2010 (G) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a contractor engaged by the respondent for the execution of civil works. According to the petitioner, as against his total bill amount of Rs.39,33, 980/-, he was paid only an amount of Rs.33,38,395/- and the difference is due. 2. However, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court and pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment dated 12/12/2005 in WP(C) No.32893/2005 and Ext.P4 judgment dated 13/12/2007 in COC No.147/2007, his claim was considered by the respondent and Ext.P5 order was issued on 07/02/2007. 3. Going by Ext.P5, the respondent disputed the eligibility of the petitioner even for the payment that has already been received. According to the respondent, the petitioner had left certain works incomplete. Be that as it may, according to the respondent, the petitioner has already been paid an amount of Rs.40,96,492/-. It is stated that no further amount is due. WP(C) No.3865/2010 -2- Therefore, although, it is the case of the petitioner that amount is still due to him, going by Ext.P5 he has already received more than what is indicated in Ext.P3. If that be so, Ext.P3 by itself will not establish that anything further is due to the petitioner. Even otherwise, in view of the disputes raised by the respondent about the claim of the petitioner, if at all the petitioner has to seek redressal, that cannot be in a writ petition. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance in an appropriate proceedings, this writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg