IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16407 of 2009(U)
1. N.G.PETER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY & OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :15/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.16407 OF 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a contractor. He states that he was
awarded a particular work by the first respondent. In relation to
that work, there are certain controversies. Ext.P5
representation made in answer to Ext.P4 notice clearly shows
that the controversies are those which have necessarily to fall for
adjudication of factual disputes in relation to the performance or
non-performance or breach of contract. Remedies may be
varied, but jurisdiction is not the High Court under article 226 of
the Constitution.
In Ext.P5, the petitioner has complained about the change
in the alignment of the retaining wall, about earth filling and
about the stand taken that a soil test has to be carried out before
taking measurement and entering it in the ‘M’ book. There is
also the question of variation of labour and other charges. These
are not matters where this Court is persuaded to direct
WPC.16407/09
Page numbers
consideration of a representation. If any representation is
unattended to, the petitioner has adequate remedies but not any
direction for consideration of that representation.
In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is dismissed
without prejudice to all other rights and remedies.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.20/6.