IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26262 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROBERT S.,S/O.SASIDHARAN, OMANAVILASOM, CHOZHIYAKKODU PO, KULATHPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, VANA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI (VSS),MILPPALAM CHOZHIYAKKODU PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT (SECTION FORESTER, MYLAMOODU FOREST SECTION) 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26262 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's quotation for transporting river sand from Milppalam kadavu to Kalavara was accepted by the respondents. Later on, an agreement was also executed between the parties. On allegation that the petitioner has committed breach of contract, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show-cause why the agreement should not be terminated. The petitioner filed a detailed reply. The petitioner was given another opportunity by Ext.P6 to make good his lapses. Since the petitioner did not, by Ext.P7 order, the contract was terminated on the ground that the petitioner failed to carry out the obligation of the petitioner under the contract agreement. The petitioner challenges the same. The petitioner cannot contend that the order was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice insofar as a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed reply. The petitioner was given another opportunity to make good his lapses and then only the order has been passed. Whether the findings of fact in the order are correct or not has to be proved by adducing evidence, which can be done only in a suit instituted for that purpose. In any event, the same cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits of parties in a writ petition. Therefore, I w.p.c.26262/10 2 am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek remedies in a civil suit. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge