IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10213 of 2011(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.SREE NARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS (PVT)LTD., SREENIVAS, OPP: K.S.R.T.C BUS STATION, KOLLAM-691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.VARADA RAJAN. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INLAND NAVIGATION DIRECTORATE, KALLADA HOUSE, AASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM-692 002. 3. KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LTD., 38/924-A, UDAYANAGAR ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1,R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.MATHEW,SC,KSINC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10213/2011 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 10/05/2010. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/08/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/10/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 25/10/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/12/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 29/11/2010. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/01/2011 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE HON.MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS. P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 19/02/2011 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4/3/2011OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/03/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. R3(B): COPY OF THE LETTERS DTD. 05/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. R3(C): COPY OF THE LETTERS DTD. 14/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. R3(D): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R3(E): COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 16/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R3(F): COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 25/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R3(G): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10213 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and the State Government has awarded the work of part II side protection and beautification work of Akkulam Lake to the 3rd respondent, a State Government owned Corporation. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the petitioner had undertaken to execute the work on behalf of 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner for having done a part of the work they have submitted a part-bill to the 3rd respondent which has not been paid so far. It is also the case of the petitioner that for various reasons that are beyond their control the work could not be completed and therefore the petitioner sought for extension of time upto 31.12.2011. W.P.(C) No. 10213 OF 2011 :2 : 3. It is stated that despite the request the period was not extended. It is in this situation this writ petition has been filed praying to direct the 3rd respondent to effect payment of the part-bill, extend the contract period or in the alternative to relieve the petitioner from the contractual obligations without risk and costs. 4. 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations raised by the petitioner and accusing the petitioner for having committed breach of contract. Petitioner also has filed a reply affidavit contradicting the averment in the counter. 5. First of all, the relationship between the parties is purely contractual in nature. Secondly petitioner on the one side is accusing the 3rd respondent for having committed breach of contract while according to the 3rd respondent, it was the petitioner who committed breach of contract. Such factual issues arising in this writ petition W.P.(C) No. 10213 OF 2011 :3 : are incapable of resolution in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such circumstances the remedy of the petitioner is not a writ petition but a civil suit before the competent civil court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge