IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 231 of 2009(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22068/2008 Dated 12/12/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- C.K. GOPALAN, SOIL HOUSE, PUTHUPANAM .O., VADAKARA. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR MR.M.R.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. MS. A.G. ANITHA – SC GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K.R. DEEPA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.NO.231 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C)No.22068 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 ORDER The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.22068/2008 seeking a direction to the Corporation of Kochi to disburse the amount due to him as charges for garbage disposal for which the petitioner was awarded a contract for the period from 1.12.2006 to 28.2.2007. I disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 12.12.2008 recording the submission of the Corporation that all amounts due to the petitioner except an amount of Rs.5,91,145/- has been paid to the petitioner and disputes regarding the balance amount have to be resolved in a civil suit. 2. The petitioner now points out that he has come to understand that the Corporation has unilaterally decided to recover damages to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.1,68,547/- as additional liability from the petitioner. The petitioner contends that such orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme R.P.No.231/09 2 Court decision of Vijay Kumar Nigam V. State of M.P. and others[AIR 1997 SC 1358], such decisions can be challenged by invoking the constitutional remedies available to the petitioner. However since in that judgment I relegated the petitioner to a civil suit, the petitioner seeks a clarification to the effect that the petitioner can challenge the subsequent orders passed, which are produced as Annexures-A1 and A2 in this review petition, by invoking other remedies available to the petitioner under law. 3. I have heard the learned counsel Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. After hearing all parties, I make it clear that if the petitioner is entitled to other remedies under law, it would be open to the petitioner to resort to such remedies, despite my judgment, relegating the petitioner to a civil suit. The review petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd R.P.No.231/09 3