IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14985 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.UMMER.K.P, "ANUGRAHA", VATTAPARAMBIL,DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, CHELLANNUR P.O, PIN-676 519. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY -IN-CHARGE. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI, R1 BY SRI.N.ABDUL MAJEED,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14985/2010-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 03/02/2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE R.1. AND PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NEW COVERAGE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALAM MAGAZINE “KARSHKASREE” PUBLISHED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALAM DAILY “KERALA KAUMUDHI” DTD. 12/01/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE R.1. AND THE PETITIONER ON 06/05/2008 EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF CONTRACT BY A FURTHER PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD. 07/04/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL CHAIRMAN, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD. 07/04/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/04/2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 07/04/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALAM DAILY KERALA KAUMUDHI DTD. 20/07/2009. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY IN THE CHANDRIKA DAILY PROPOSING TO CONDUCT AUCTION ON 18/05/2010. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE PREPARED BY THE MUNICIPALITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT WHICH IS CONNECTED BY THE OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY RELATING TO THE ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 03/02/07. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT DTD. 06/05/08. W.P.(C). NO.14985/2010-W: EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 06/05/08. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 23/04/09. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 27/05/09. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 03/06/09. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 14985 of 2010-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the steps taken by the Municipality to re-auction the right to collect waste from the Municipality and dispose of the same. The period for which the Municipality decided to conduct the auction begins from 1.6.2010. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted contract for a period of one year as per Ext.P1 agreement. The same was extended later, for a period of three years from 6.5.2008 as per Ext.P4 and after one year he submitted Exts.P5 and P6 requests to relieve him temporarily in view of the fact that he was suffering from Toxiz Modular Goitre. Accordingly, he was temporarily relieved from the contract and a third party was entrusted with the management of the disposal of waste. After the petitioner became relieved of the medical treatment, he applied for continuance of the contract. Aggrieved by the steps taken to go ahead with the tender, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. According to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the second period of contract was only for a period of one year, but a typographical error occurred in the agreement wpc 14985/2010 2 showing the period as three years which was later corrected. A copy of the resolution of the Municipal Council extending the term of the contract as one year, has been produced as Ext.R1(c). It is pointed out that on expiry of the period, the petitioner was relieved of the contract after disbursing the admissible amount due. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit producing Exts.P11 and P12 to show that actually the agreement was for a period of three years. The matter requires elaborate evidence to decide whether the period of contract was for one year or for a period of three years as contended by the parties concerned. In the meanwhile, the tender has already been finalised in favour of a third party, who is not a party to this writ petition also. 4. Since disputed questions of fact are involved, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not be justified in considering the matter on merits. It is up to the petitioner to move the appropriate statutory authorities in the matter. Leaving open the said remedy, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/