The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the contract for which cancellation was sought had already expired for the period 2008-09, rendering the dispute academic.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 12006 of 2008 (D)
PETITIONER(S) :
VISUAL PUBLICITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DEEPTHI K.S., DOOR NO.33/753 B, VIGNESH BHAVAN, SAVITHA ROAD, VENNALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.
5. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, S.C R2 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.12006 of 2008 - D
======================
Dated this the 07th day of December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition was filed with respect to cancellation
of a contract for the period 2008-09. The period of contract itself having expired, there is no reason, why the writ petition should be kept pending.
The writ petition hence would stand dismissed as
infructuous.
Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/09/12/2016
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking cancellation of an expired contract can be treated as maintainable.
Whether the dispute has become academic due to the expiry of the contract period.
VISUAL PUBLICITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DEEPTHI K.S.
THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
