High Court Kerala High Court

S.Gopalakrishnan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 26 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
S.Gopalakrishnan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 26 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27976 of 2008(E)


1. S.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.V.VINISHKUMAR,
3. SHERRY V.VAKKACHAN,

                        Vs



1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD , (BSNL)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER

3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LAL GEORGE

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :26/09/2008

 O R D E R
                                    V. GIRI, J.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       W.P.(C)No. 27976 OF 2008
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioners have entered into an agreement with BSNL for

the supply of vehicles for the use of the officers in the department.

Apparently, the agreement contemplated supply of higher type

vehicles, such as Tata Sumo/Scorpio,Toyota/ Qualis/Innova/

Tavera/Spacio/Maruthi Van etc. for a period of one year from

01.07.2008. It seems that later the department realized that the use

of such higher type vehicles are expensive. Therefore, they decided

to choose lower type vehicles such as Ambassador, or a jeep.

Therefore the petitioners are directed to give lower type vehicles as

per Exts.P5, P6 & P7. The same has been challenged in this writ

petition.

2. If the petitioners think that there is breach of contract, then

their remedy lies elsewhere. Learned Standing Counsel for the

BSNL submits that it was only a method of curtailing expenditure by

using lower type vehicles. Learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that rejection of higher type vehicles will cause serious

prejudice to the petitioners.

W.P.(C)No. 27976 OF 2008
-:2:-

3. Learned counsel for the BSNL submits that petitioners 1 and

3 may supply two higher type vehicles for a period of two months as

a concessional measure. But, in so far as the 2nd petitioner is

concerned, since he has five lower type vehicles, that facility need

not be made available to the 2nd petitioner. In the circumstances, I

am of the view that the same facility be afforded to all the three

petitioners.

In the result, this writ petition is closed directing the

respondents to make requisition for two higher type vehicles from

each of the petitioners for a period of two months from today. It is

open to the petitioners to respond to Exts.P5, P6 and P7 and supply

of vehicles thereafter shall be subject to the decision taken by the

BSNL in that regard.

(V. GIRI, JUDGE)

ttb