High Court Kerala High Court

A.John vs The Changanacherry Municipality on 22 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
A.John vs The Changanacherry Municipality on 22 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30811 of 2010(B)


1. A.JOHN, ANSONS GROUP,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

                For Respondent  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :22/10/2010

 O R D E R
                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                        ---------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No. 30811 OF 2010
                         --------------------------
           Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, an Architect by profession, executed

certain works for the Changanacherry Municipality. The dispute

raised in this writ petition relates to payment of architectural fee

and service tax. The petitioner’s request for payment of the

sum of Rs.2,20,087/-, which according to him was the balance

amount which he was entitled to receive, was rejected by

Ext.P9 letter dated 17.5.2010 wherein the Secretary of the

Municipality took the stand that the balance amount payable to

the petitioner is only Rs.8,346/-. Ext.P9 is under challenge in

this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondents to pay him the balance bill amount of

Rs.2,20,087/- with interest from 13.8.2006.

In my opinion in view of the stand taken by the

Municipality in Ext.P9 letter, the remedy of the petitioner, if he is

aggrieved thereby, is to move the competent civil court. In such

WPC No.30811/2010 2

circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief could be

granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition

fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right

of the petitioner to move the competent civil court seeking

redressal of his grievances.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
vps

WPC No.30811/2010 3

WPC No.30811/2010 4