IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14834 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.V.A.ALERT SECURITY, SANSKRIT COLLEGE ROAD, ABOVE JYOTHI GAS (OLD OFFICE) TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 301, REPRESENTED BY COL.S.K.K.NAIR (RETD) PROPRIETOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BSNL, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASST.GENERAL MANAGER (R & E), O/O. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN FOR R1 & 2 ADV. SRI. MATHEWS K. PHILIP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14834 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to have rendered security services to the respondents. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the amounts due to the petitioner in respect of the services rendered have not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to withhold any amount due to the petitioner; ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the originals relating to Ext. P3 and quash the same. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 representation .” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein they dispute the claim of the petitioner. They also submit that earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 4092/2007 wherein, by Ext. R1(a) judgment, the petitioner has been relegated to the remedy by way of arbitration. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner cannot now file another writ petition for the same relief. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext. R1(a) judgment in W.P(C) No. 4092/2007 filed by the petitioner reads thus: “In view of Clause 28 of Ext. P9 which provides for an arbitration, the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy and it not proper that this writ petition is entertained. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. Any interim orders between the parties before or during the course of arbitration matters are to be governed by the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hence interim order vacated.” W.P.C. No. 14834/2010 -: 2 :- In view of the said judgment, I do not think that the petitioner can maintain another writ petition for the same cause of action. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.