High Court Kerala High Court

George Joseph vs The Executive Engineer on 15 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
George Joseph vs The Executive Engineer on 15 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1511 of 2008(E)


1. GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 48 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/01/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
               ------------------------------------
                         W.P.(C) 1511 of 2008
              -------------------------------------
                        Dated: January 15, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner was awarded a contract for plying a boat in the

Malampuzha dam. The contract period was upto 23.1.2008. It is

stated by the petitioner that though he was given exclusive right for

plying the boat, a third party was allowed to ply the boat, as a result

of which petitioner’s income has been reduced substantially. In

view of this the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation for

extending the contract period. While the representation is pending,

tenders have been invited for the period subsequent to 23.1.2008.

It is in this background that the writ petition has been filed praying

for a direction to consider the representation deferring further

proceedings pursuant to the tender notice.

3. If, as a matter of fact, the respondents have committed any

breach of contract as contended by the petitioner, the remedy of the

petitioner lies in damages. That apart, he has not raised any

objection against an additional boat operator who is also stated to

WP(C) 1511/08
Page numbers

have been introduced by the respondents. At any rate, irrespective

of the claim that the petitioner has made against the respondent,

there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner praying for

extending the contract period or postponing invitation of tenders

now floated by Ext.P5. In view of this I am not prepared to grant the

reliefs sought for by the petitioner.

Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mt/-