IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5052 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT S-2/20, CHHANCHA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, STATION BAZAR, BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ, ORISSA – 757 001 REP. BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI.V.N.RAJAN, CHIEF ENGINEER NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PRIVATE LIMITED, SITE OFFICE, THAKAZHI ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION SOUTH) VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KSE BOARD ALAPPUZHA – 688 001. 4. THE PROJECT MANAGER, KSEB, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 688 014. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5052 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Contractor who had executed a work awarded by the respondents. Shorn of details, what the petitioner seeks in this writ petition is payment for the work done in terms of the agreement between the parties. In my opinion, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the non payment for the work done, as the contract is not a statutory contract, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the competent civil court. The petitioner contends that the stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P5 letter has led to the dispute and the delay in payment. An adjudication of the claim made by the petitioner can properly be done only in a suit. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed leaving open the contentions of the petitioner and reserving liberty with him to institute a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction seeking the reliefs prayed for. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.