IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH APRIL 2010 / 7TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13755 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.S.BINU, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, M/S. BINU AND COMPANY, PEZHUMTHURUTHU, PERUMAN .P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN, SRI. V.A. SASIDHARAN, SRI. JOSEPEH ALBIN NEDUMTHALLY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, C.M.DIVISION,K.S.E.B., PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, C.M.DIVISION,K.S.E.B., PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, (FABRICATION), C.M.DIVISION,K.S.E.B., PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER & TEAM LEADER, K.S.E.B., CENTRAL MECHANICAL DEVISION, C.M.F. PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13755 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was awarded a contract work which he was not able to complete within the stipulated period due to various reasons. Therefore, the period of completion of the work was extended up to 31.3.2010. According to the petitioner, due to further non-supply of electrical energy, the petitioner could not complete the work even before the said date. Therefore, he requested for the grant of 15 working days more by submitting Ext.P4. He also filed W.P.(C) No.11709/2010 for a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on his representation. He complains that though this Court had directed the first respondent to take a decision on his representation, he has been granted only three day's time to complete the work. He has submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent seeking 15 day's time to complete the work. The said representation is pending consideration of the said authority. In view of the fact that Ext.P7 is pending wpc No.13755/2010 2 consideration of the 4th respondent, it is sufficient that the same is directed to be disposed of. However, I notice that, if the grant of fifteen days more time to the petitioner could ensure completion of the entire work, it would be better to permit the petitioner himself to complete the work rather than re-tender the same. The process of re- tender would certainly result in more delay than what is requested for. The above aspect shall also be taken note of while considering the petitioner's request. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P7 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/