High Court Kerala High Court

V.A.Vasudevan vs State Of Kerala on 2 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
V.A.Vasudevan vs State Of Kerala on 2 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33166 of 2010(U)


1. V.A.VASUDEVAN,S/O.APPUKUTTAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KANNUR-12

4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

5. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :02/11/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 33166 OF 2010 (U)
               =====================

         Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

In pursuance to Ext.P1 tender notice, petitioner submitted

his tender. He was awarded the tender and thereupon Exts.P4

and P5 agreements were executed. Petitioner now complains that

Clause 23(iv) of the agreement goes beyond the scope of the

tender notice and therefore is illegal. Challenging the said

provision, though he had approached this Court by filing WP(C)

NO.27499/10, this Court declined to entertain the writ petition

and left the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Civil

Court. It is stated that subsequently, he made Ext.P9

representation to the 2nd respondent seeking to exonerate him

from the operation of Clause 23(iv) of the agreement. This

representation is pending.

2. In this writ petition, all that is sought for is a direction

to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9. True, as rightly pointed

out by the learned Government Pleader, the issue is one which is

incapable of adjudication in a writ petition, and if at all the

petitioner is aggrieved, he has to move the Civil Court. But

WPC No. 33166/10
:2 :

however, that does not mean that if a representation is made, it

cannot be considered by the 2nd respondent.

3. In that view of the matter, without expressing anything

on the merits, it is directed that if Ext.P9 has been received and is

pending, 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders

thereon. This shall be done at any rate within 6 weeks of

production of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp