IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1655 of 2008(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNIL JOSEPH.N., SUNIL COTTAGE, KARUTHURA, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 583. BY ADV. SRI.VIKANTH K.PUTHUMANA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CHAIRMAN & M.D., INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD., 1207 VS MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 028. 2. CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD., 1207 VS MARG,PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 028. 3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD., CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 583. 4. SENIOR MANAGER (HRM) AND CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD., CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 583. 5. B.ALPHONES, ANIL NIVAS, KULANGARABHAGOM, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 583. BY ADV. SRI. A.K. JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1655 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, Petitioner is a public spirited citizen. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he is questioning the action of the respondents in awarding the work of dredging area clearance and allied works of Indian Rare Earth Limited to the fifth respondent. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent is a workman and therefore under the standing orders of the Company the contesting respondent could not have awarded any contract to the workman working in the industry. 2. Petitioner has not produced any material before us to suggest that the fifth respondent is working in Indian Rare Earth Limited, which has awarded the contract to the fifth respondent. In the absence of such material, we cannot entertain the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.