IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16407 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N.G.PETER, S/O.N.V.GEORGE, AGED 65 YEARS, C.P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT NELLIKKAL HOUSE, PYARI JUNCTION, COCHIN-5. BY ADVS. MR.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY, MR.ANIL GEORGE, SMT.SARITHA.V.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE WORKS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR. P.RAMAKRISHNAN,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16407 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a contractor. He states that he was awarded a particular work by the first respondent. In relation to that work, there are certain controversies. Ext.P5 representation made in answer to Ext.P4 notice clearly shows that the controversies are those which have necessarily to fall for adjudication of factual disputes in relation to the performance or non-performance or breach of contract. Remedies may be varied, but jurisdiction is not the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. In Ext.P5, the petitioner has complained about the change in the alignment of the retaining wall, about earth filling and about the stand taken that a soil test has to be carried out before taking measurement and entering it in the 'M' book. There is also the question of variation of labour and other charges. These are not matters where this Court is persuaded to direct WPC.16407/09 Page numbers consideration of a representation. If any representation is unattended to, the petitioner has adequate remedies but not any direction for consideration of that representation. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is dismissed without prejudice to all other rights and remedies. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.20/6.