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 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1372 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18180/2011 Dated 25/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- K.N. MOHANAN, CONTRACTOR, 'NARAYANEEYAM', MADAN NADA, THEKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.T.S.ANURAJ SRI.B.BALA PRASANNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT II (IRRIGATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT CIRCLE(RIGHT BANK), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT CIRCLE(LEFT BANK), DIVISION NO.5, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT CIRCLE(LEFT BANK), SUB DIVISION NO.19,KOTTIYAM, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 571. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT (LEFT BANK), DIVISION NO.13, KOLLAM-691 101. WA.No. 1372 of 2011 6. NIRMALA FRANCIS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT (LEFT BANK), SECTION NO.28/19, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM-691 571. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1372 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the duty entrusted to the 6th respondent to supervise the works awarded to the appellant under a works contract. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that in view of the difference of opinion between the concerned officer and the appellant, a representation was preferred before the higher authority; pursuant to which the matter was considered by the 3rd respondent which led to Ext.P2 order dated 24.05.2011, changing the said officer and entrusting the supervision with the 5th respondent. 3. It is stated that, despite the sequence of events as above, the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P4 order dated 27.05.2011 directed the 3rd respondent to cancel Ext.P2 and accordingly, the 6th respondent has been brought back again, which is sought to be intercepted by filing Ext.P7 representation before the 2nd W.A. No.1372 of 2011 -:2:- respondent, raising many a complaint; which is allegedly kept in cold storage. This made the appellant to approach this Court by filing the writ petition for disposal of the said representation. 4. After considering the nature of the grievance involved, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that, absolutely no plea or malafides was raised anywhere in the writ petition; nor was there any specific plea of arbitrariness with regard to the course pursued by the concerned respondent. In the said circumstance interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that the relief sought for is not for adjudication on merits, but for a disposal of Ext.P7 representation, we do not find any legally acceptable ground to sustain the said prayer or for interference with the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge. There is no vested right for the appellant/contractor, to choose the officer to supervise the work. W.A. No.1372 of 2011 -:3:- In the circumstances, no interference is warranted. Appeal fails. The same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb