IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1976 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30129/2010 Dated 04/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC: ------------------------------------- JOE PAUL VITHAYATHIL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PAUL V.J., VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, VARAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PWD (ROADS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PO, 695001. 2. ROADS AND BRIDGES CORPORATION LTD., 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM PO, KOCHI-25, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-682025.. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 1976 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 4th October, 2010 in W.P. (C) No.30129 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The dispute between the appellant and the respondents centres around the rights and obligations arising under Ext.P1 agreement dated 7.6.2010 by which the appellant was licensed to collect toll at Pullepady bridge till 6.6.2011. For various reasons, the details of which may not be necessary, the agreement came to be terminated by the respondents and subsequently the licence was awarded in favour of a third party. 3. Challenging the correctness of the termination of the agreement and also the decision of the respondents to invoke the bank guarantee given by the appellant at the time of entering upon W.A.No.1976 of 2010 - 2 - the agreement, the appellant approached this Court. 4. By the judgment under appeal, the writ petition was dismissed essentially on the ground that the issues raised by the appellant/petitioner are in the realm of facts investigation of which is not normally undertaken by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not see any reason to take a view different from the one taken by the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns