IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28022 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SAJIMON,PALA TIMBERS, KARAKKAMANDAPAM,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP:SECRETARY P.W.D. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE EXECUTIE ENGINEER,N.H.DIVISION, P.M.G.TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28022 OF 2010 (C) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an auction notice published by the respondents for the disposal of 160 trees standing in M.C.Road, between Mananthala and Kesavadasapuram, Trivandrum. Petitioner states that he participated in the tender and that the auction was confirmed in his favour. However, he was issued Ext.P3 showing the tree numbers sold as 157 and he was informed that the auction has been confirmed and requesting the petitioner to cut and remove the trees except those mentioned in Ext.P3. Case of the petitioner is that the trees mentioned in Ext.P3 and shown to him at the time of the auction are different. It is also his case that while 160 trees were put for auction as per Ext.P1, only 157 are allowed to be cut and removed and thus there is reduction in the trees sold. It is in these circumstances, challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to cut and remove 160 trees which were put for auction as per Ext.P1. 2. Learned Government Pleader who has obtained WPC No. 28022/10 :2 : instructions in the matter submits that 160 trees which were auctioned as per Ext.P1 were identified and numbered and the details were disclosed to the participants at the time of auction. It is stated that the sale which has been confirmed in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 is in respect of the trees offered for auction as per Ext.P1 and that there is no change whatsoever in the number or identity of the trees. 3. In so far as the reduction in the number of trees complained of by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that in the unprecedented rains, three trees were uprooted and it was therefore that 157 was mentioned in Ext.P3. It is stated that the uprooted trees are available at site and can be removed by the petitioner. 4. Thus, while the petitioner complains of reduction in the number and change in the identity of the trees, this allegation is stoutly denied by the learned Government Pleader. It is also the case of the respondents that at the time of auction, petitioner has inspected the trees and since there is no change, there is no scope for any dispute. Obviously, the issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the change in the identity of the trees, which WPC No. 28022/10 :3 : is a totally contested factual issue. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be resolved in a writ petition. So far as the reduction in the number of trees is concerned, since it has occurred in the circumstances explained by the learned Government Pleader and as the petitioner is free to remove the uprooted 3 trees, there is no substance in this contention either. I am not persuaded to grant any relief. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp