IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 224 of 2009(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.B.V. ASSOCIATES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WITH REGISTER NUMBER, 622/1996, AND HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHREE MADHAVOM, CHAVADINADA, VANGANOOR P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23 REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.K.BIJU, S/O.THE LATE G.KRISHNAMOORTHY. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-60003. 2. THE DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (WORKS) SOUTHERN RAILWAY,DIVISIONAL OFFICE VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-14. ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR FOR R1,2 SHRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH, SC FOR RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.224 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the claims of the petitioner under a contract for the work of construction of Railway Protection Force barrack. The tender was eventually cancelled and the petitioner, now claims refund of the EMD and other deposits. 2. The respondents have filed a statement, in which it is stated that in terms of Clauses 63 & 64 of the General Conditions of contract governing the agreement between the parties, any disputes or differences arising between the parties is to be presented before the General Manager for settlement, and that if no settlement is reached within the specified period, then demand arbitration before the General Manager. 3. It is seen that though Exts.P11 & P12 representations have been made by the petitioner, both are not addressed to the designated authority, namely, the General Manager. 4. Now, that the agreement provides for a remedy of WP(C) No.224/2009 -2- arbitration for resolution of disputes, the writ petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as provided in Clauses 63 & 64 of the agreement between the parties. The writ petition is closed as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg