IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2303 of 2006(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.K.RAMESH, S/O.R.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, R.K.RAMESH ARCHITECTS, 8/384, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, CALICUT-67302, RESIDING AT NO.17, KJAYANTHI NAGAR COLONY, P.T.USHA ROAD, CALICUT-32. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR(PATTAZHY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAYA MANSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA FOR R2 G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF G.O. DT.8.1.1996 OF R1. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.22.4.99 OF R2. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF G.O. DT.17.2.2001 OF R1. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 19.3.2001 OF R2 AND THE PETITIONER. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.19.11.2001 OF PETITIONER TO R2. P6: PHOTOCOPY OF REMINDER LETTER DT.3.1.02 OF THE PETITIONER TO R2. P7: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.23.9.02 OF THE MAHENDRA MEHTA, MANAGER TO R2. P8: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.29.10.02 OF THE PETITIONER TO R2. P9: .DO. DT.12.5.03 .DO. P10: .DO. DT.19.8.03 .DO. P11: PHOTOCOPY OF BILL NO.178/2003 DT.17.11.2003 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DT.17.11.2003 OF THE PETITIONER TO R2. P12: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.22.2.05 OF PETITIONER TO R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.2303 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Prayer in the W.P. is for direction to the second respondent to consider and grant petitioner's bill for consultancy services amounting to Rs.84 lakhs. According to the petitioner, petitioner's appointment for Architectural and Consultancy Services for a Sports Complex, Amusement Park, Club House etc. at Muttathara Village in Trivandrum was approved by the Government. Even though petitioner had done part of the work and raised bill, nothing is paid is petitioner's case. However, Standing Counsel for second respondent submitted that the project itself is abandoned and what little work petitioner did was without consulting the Engineers of the second respondent and not in accordance with the norms to be followed. I do not think there is any scope for this court considering the issue in writ proceeding when the facts itself are disputed by the second respondent. In fact, petitioner has no case that he has rendered full services and the work done appears to be only preliminary in nature. The W.P. is therefore 2 dismissed leaving freedom to the petitioner to file suit, if petitioner has any contractual claim against second respondent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms