Kerala High Court
C.K.Poulose vs The State Of Kerala
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6880 of 2009 (D)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
C.K.POULOSE, AGED 70,
S/O.KUNJUVAREED, CHAKALAMUTTATH HOUSE,
AYYANKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR.
3. THE CORPORATION ENGINEER,
THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ
R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 6880 of 2009 (D)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXT. P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 2.7.07.
EXT. P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.7.07.
EXT. P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD RECEIVED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.7.07.
EXT. P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 13.9.07.
EXT. P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT DATED 24.10.08.
EXT. P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 12.12.08.
EXT. P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER INTIMATED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 6.2.09.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No.6880 of 2009 - D
======================
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The above writ petition was filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to settle the amounts due to the petitioner as sought in Ext.P2, including the final bills of work done and the security of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). The said grievances are said to have been redressed. There was also a challenge raised against Ext.P7, wherein the petitioner was directed to return the bitumen and other materials issued by the Corporation for execution of the work, which has already been returned, is the contention of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's contention that bitumen was returned is denied by the Corporation. It is also submitted by the Corporation that there is no money due to the petitioner as 2 W.P.(C) No.6880 of 2009 - D of now and the EMD has been adjusted towards the loss caused by the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have taken appropriate remedies against such orders by the Corporation and as of now there is nothing to be considered in the writ petition.
The writ petition would stand closed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/11 /11/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge