IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30811 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.JOHN, ANSONS GROUP, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, UNION AUTO BUILDING, MUNICIPAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SC FOR R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30811 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, an Architect by profession, executed certain works for the Changanacherry Municipality. The dispute raised in this writ petition relates to payment of architectural fee and service tax. The petitioner's request for payment of the sum of Rs.2,20,087/-, which according to him was the balance amount which he was entitled to receive, was rejected by Ext.P9 letter dated 17.5.2010 wherein the Secretary of the Municipality took the stand that the balance amount payable to the petitioner is only Rs.8,346/-. Ext.P9 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay him the balance bill amount of Rs.2,20,087/- with interest from 13.8.2006. In my opinion in view of the stand taken by the Municipality in Ext.P9 letter, the remedy of the petitioner, if he is aggrieved thereby, is to move the competent civil court. In such WPC No.30811/2010 2 circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the competent civil court seeking redressal of his grievances. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.30811/2010 3 WPC No.30811/2010 4