IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13080 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.K. JAMES, S/O. KAKEY, COTNRACTOR, AGED 70 YEARS, THATUPURAM HOUSE, UDAYA ROAD, KOCHI 682 019. BY ADVS. MR.V.J.JOSEPH, SMT.M.V.LIGI, SMT.LISSY JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, O/O. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THAIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13080/2008 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT NO.CCPC9-25347/03 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT DTD. 24/08/2005. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/11/2005 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/06/2006 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/10/2006 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/12/2006 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14/03/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/05/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/05/2007 OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/05/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 02/08/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 06/09/2007 OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/09/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P13: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 24/10/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT WORKS STANDING COMMITTEE. P14: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/11/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.13080/2008 F P15: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/02/2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P16: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.14/2008/LSGD DTD. 15/01/2008. P17: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3666/2008 IN WPC.NO.2447/2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P18: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CCPC9-25347/03 DTD. 4/03/2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF NOTICE NO.CCPC9-25347/03 DTD. 4/03/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 13080 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor, who was awarded certain construction work by the 1st respondent-Corporation of Cochin. An agreement Ext. P1 was executed between the parties on 24-8-2005. As per the agreement, the work was to be completed by 23-2-2007. The petitioner did not complete the work within the stipulated time. According to the petitioner, that was not because of any fault of the petitioner but because the Corporation did not supply the plan and drawings in respect of the building in question within a reasonable time. However, the Corporation has taken an adamant stand and ultimately terminated the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. That action is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit disputing the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, it was because of the fault on the part of the petitioner himself that the work could not be completed within the time stipulated and they have rightly terminated the agreement at the risk and cost of the petitioner. 3. I have heard both parties in detail. 4. The question as to who is at fault in the matter of non- completion of the contract work within the stipulated time is a disputed question of fact, which can be decided only after taking evidence. It would be more appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy by way of filing a civil suit for resolution of that dispute. 5. The petitioner submits that an arbitrator may be appointed to resolve the dispute. Having considered all aspects of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a civil suit for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. If the petitioner has got a case that the matter can be referred for arbitration, it is for him to take up the matter with the W.P.C. No. 13080/08 -: 2 :- civil court where he proposes to file the suit. For enabling the petitioner to file a suit and obtain interim orders therein, the recovery part of Ext. P18 (which is Ext. R1(a) produced along with the counter affidavit) shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/