IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3889 of 2008(K)
1. K.C.MOHAMMED IQBAL, KAPPACHALIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
3. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
4. THE RANGE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.3889 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner participated in a tender floated
by the 2nd respondent for working down timber billets
and firewood from 1926 Chettikulam Teak Plantation of
Vellikulangara Range. Tender was confirmed on
28.11.2006 and agreement Ext.P1 was executed on
22.1.2007. The petitioner had deposited an amount of
Rs.20,000/- by way of security and he had also
deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- by way of Earnest
Money Deposit for due fulfillment of the terms of the
conditions of the contract. But the petitioner’s grievance
is that he was not handed over the area for carrying out
the work in terms of the contract. This is in spite of
Exts.P2 and P3. But, by Ext.P4 communication, the
petitioner was intimated that apart from the work in
question, he had also taken another work for 1925
Kunnattupadam Teak Plantations. Since access to the
1925 Teak Plantation is through the 1926 Teak
W.P.(C).No.3889 of 2008
:: 2 ::
Plantation, the Department though it fit not to entrust
the work simultaneously as it may lead to confusion.
Ext.P4 was followed by Ext.P5 requiring the petitioner to
start the work. This writ petition is seeking a direction
that the petitioner stands discharged from the contract
and also for a direction to the respondents to refund the
Earnest Money Deposit and the security deposit made by
the petitioner.
2. The respondents have filed a counter
affidavit. In my view, the declaration as sought for by
the petitioner could be granted only by a Civil Court.
The question as to whether the respondents have
committed a breach in not handing over the work site
will require adduction of evidence. If the respondents
have been at fault, obviously the petitioner will be
entitled to be treated as discharged from the obligation
and in such circumstances, claim damages. These are
matters which can be agitated before the Civil Court and
not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
W.P.(C).No.3889 of 2008
:: 3 ::
In the circumstances, reserving the liberty of
the petitioner to approach the Civil Court in relation to
Ext.P1 agreement and the alleged breach on the part of
the respondents thereof, the writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//