IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30567 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.V.AJIKUMAR,S/O.M.P.VASU,AGED 53, DENTAL SURGEON,POLY DENTAL CLINIC, DOOR NO.41/2425,CORPORATION BUILDING, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD,ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,5TH FLOOR, A-WING, METRO BHAWAN,FIRE FRIGADE LANE,BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. PROJECT DIRECTOR(DMRC-KOCHI METRO), DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,2ND FLOOR, GCDA EASTERN ENTRY TOWER,ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI 682 016. 3. M/S.CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT.LTD.,5TH FLOOR, ALPHA PLAZA, K.P.VALLOM ROAD,KADAVANTHARA,COCHIN 682 020, KERALA. 4. M/S.RDS PROJECT LTD., 6TH FLOOR, ALPHA PLAZA,.K..P.VALLOM ROAD,KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN 682 020. 5. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY POLICE,ERNAKULAM 682 031. 7. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001. ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR,SC,COCHIN CORPORAT FOR R5 SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 &2 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 & 2 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 &2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMD SHAH SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, SC, COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30567/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PROFESSION TAX RECEIPT DATED 10/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPROVAL LETTER DATED 30/7/2009 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ,MINISTRY OF LABOUR EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TENDER DOCUMENT FOR THE KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT PREPARATORY WORK-REBUILDING OF ROB NO.213A TO FOUR LANES WITH METRO STRUCTURE INCLUDING APPROACHES AT KM-104/5-6 NEAR ERNAKULAM TOWN RAILWAY STATION BETWEEN ERNAKULAM TOWN AND ERNAKULAM JUNCTION RAILWAY STATIONS,PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ILLEGAL BARRICADING DONE BY THE CONTRACTORS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF ERNAKULAM NORTH RAILWAY STATION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WEB PAGE OF THE COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY PETITIONER ONLINE AND THE REMARKS THEREON. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30567 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a Dentist, who has established his Dental Clinic and also an institution called Indian Institute of Dental Technology which according to him are situated on the road leading to the Ernakulam North Railway Station. Respondents 1 and 2 are undertaking the Kochi Metro Rail Project and respondents 3 and 4 are entrusted with the work of reconstruction of the Ernakulam North Rail Over Bridge. The terms and conditions subject to which the work is undertaken are those incorporated in Ext.P3 tender document. According to the petitioner, at the project site, barricades have been erected, as a result of which, the traffic is completely blocked. It is stated that such complete blockage of traffic on account of the barricades erected are in violation of Clause 2.8 and 2.11 of the tender conditions. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for removal of the barricades constructed and placed by respondents 3 and 4 in violation of the contract conditions. Consequential reliefs are also sought. WPC No.30567/11 :2 : 2. Thus, essentially what is sought for by the petitioner, who is a third party to the contract between respondents 1 and 2 on the one side and respondents 3 and 4 on the other is the enforcement of the contract conditions between the aforesaid parties. 3. In my view, if at all the petitioner can claim this kind of a relief, such a relief can only be sought not in a writ petition, but before the Civil Court where the question as to whether the contract conditions have been violated will necessarily have to be gone into and adjudicated. Therefore, the writ petition is not the remedy. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge