IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No.3042 of 2000(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- R. MOHANAN, POOYAPPALLIL HOUSE, ARUMOOTTIMANGALAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.I.P. (MSC) DIVISION No.1, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), MAVELIKKARA. BY MR. T.K. VIPINDAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.3042/2000 Order on C.M.P.No.4942/2000 in O.P.No.3042/2000 Closed. 17.02.2009 Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE LOCAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING CONDITIONS IN RESPECT OF KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT DATED NIL. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT No.A1.3895/88 DATED 1.1.1998. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT No.A1-3894/88 DATED 26.12.1997. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT No.A1-3896/88 DATED 1.1.1998. EXT. P5 : COPY OF the NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.7.1998. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.7.1998. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.7.1998. EXT. P8 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.No.20157/1998-Y DTD 13.10.1999. EXT. P9 : COPY OF the OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 9.1.1999. EXT. P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT No.A1-3895/88 DATED 1.1.2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.3042 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a contractor, who undertook certain works on behalf of the respondents. He did not complete the work as undertaken. Pursuant thereto, Exts.P2 to P4 demand notices and Exts.P5 to P7 revenue recovery notices were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging those demands and revenue recovery notices. The petitioner raises two contentions. First is that in Ext.P1 there is an arbitration clause and by Ext.P9 representation, the petitioner requested for referring the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents to the arbitrator which has not been done by the respondents. The second is that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging the demands, in which, Ext.P8 judgment has been passed by this Court, whereby the Executive Engineer, KIP (MCS) Division No.1, Kollam, the 2nd respondent herein, was directed to re-consider the matter after affording an opportunity O.P.No.3042/2000 2 for personal hearing of the petitioner on certain conditions. According to the petitioner, despite the said direction and despite the petitioner complying with the conditions, Ext.P10 order has been passed rejecting his contention without affording him an opportunity of being heard. 2. Regarding the first contention, the contention of the learned Government pleader is that, by the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clause and Re-opening of Awards Act, the Government has revoked all arbitration clauses in Government contracts and therefore, the arbitration clause in Ext.P1 agreement does not survive. Regarding the second contention, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not asked for a personal hearing. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, in so long as the petitioner has not challenged the said Act, by which the arbitration clause has been revoked, the petitioner cannot succeed in that contention. As far as the second contention is concerned, I find considerable merit in the same. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court had specifically directed the 2nd respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of O.P.No.3042/2000 3 being heard. The contention of the learned Government Pleader ithat the petitioner did not request for a personal hearing also does not appear to be correct, since in Ext.P9 the petitioner had in fact sought for a personal hearing. That being so, Ext.P10 order has been passed in violation of Ext.P8 judgment as also principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P10 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to re-consider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as directed in Ext.P8 judgment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.3042/2000 4