IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30830 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- TEJI PAUL, PUTHOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADY P.O., NJEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. ADV. SRI.SAJU JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM-686 009. 2. DIRECTOR, (PROCESSING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT) RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM-686 009. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (CE), DEPARTMENT OF PROCESSING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM-9. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. MATHEWS K. UTHUPPACHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30830 OF 2010(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that in respect of a tender invited by the respondents for the work of construction of Labourlines at RRII, Kottayam that the petitioner submitted his tender and was awarded the work. According to the petitioner, based on the agreement executed, he completed substantial portion of the work awarded but however, the work was subsequently terminated at his risk and costs. 2. It is stated that thereafter the quantity of the work executed by the petitioner was measured in his presence and even in spite of it, he has not been paid fully for the work he has executed. 3. The case of the respondents is that the work was terminated for the breach committed by the petitioner. It is also their case that since the termination was at the risk and cost of the petitioner, respondents are entitled to recover the damages sustained by them. It is stated that, therefore the petitioner cannot claim any payment at least at this stage. WPC.No.30830 /2010 :2 : 4. Even if it is true that the work was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner, after recovering damages, if any excess amount is due to the petitioner, at least to that amount the petitioner is entitled to. From the facts, it is obvious that such quantification has not been done so far. 5. In that view of the matter, I direct the respondents to quantify the amount due to the petitioner and also the damages if any due to be recovered from him. Once the damages is quantified, the excess amount if any due to the petitioner shall be paid. 6. Petitioner has a complaint that his equipments are withheld and the EMD is still not released. It is also a matter for the respondents to consider. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent before whom, Ext.P6 representation is filed by the petitioner is pending to consider the same in the light of the aforesaid observations and communicate their decision to the petitioner. This the respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of WPC.No.30830 /2010 :3 : copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/