IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35419 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRASAD.K.S, AGED 46 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, S/O.SIVARAMAN, KADECKAL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY.P.O, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN:682314. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MULANTHURUTHY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN:682314. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVT.DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS SECTION, EDAKKATTUVAYAL. 3. P.K.SURENDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PATHADIYIL KANNAN, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO.XIII, MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MULANTHURUTHY.PO. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. ADV. SRI. V.V. ASOKAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 35419/2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TENDER NOTICE DT. 24-11-2008. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 25-11-2008. EXT.P2(a) COMMITTEE DECISION DST. 19-11-2008. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 25-11-2008. EXT.P4 AGENDA REGISTER DT. 19-11-2008. EXT.P5 PETITION DT. 19-11-2008. EXT.P6 OBJECTION NOTE DT. 20-11-2008. EXT.P6(a) OBJECTION NOTE DT. 20-11-2008. EXT.P7 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 10335/2007. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 26-11-2008. EXT.P9 NEWS ARTICLE DT. 22-11-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35419 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor who used to undertake works on behalf of the Mulanthuruthy Panchayat also. His grievance in this writ petition is that he has been blacklisted by Exts.P2 and P2(a) without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He has a further grievance that in respect of a notification inviting tenders by the Panchayat, he has been refused tender forms by Ext. P3. The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 also . 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the Panchayat. 3. It is not disputed by the counsel for the Panchayat that before passing Exts.P2 and P2(a) orders blacklisting the petitioner, the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is settled law that before taking a decision on blacklisting of a contractor, he should be given an opportunity of being heard. That being so, Exts.P2 and P2(a) are violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same are quashed. Since there would be no order blacklisting the petitioner on quashing Exts.P.2 and P2(a), the 1st respondent is bound to issue tender forms to the petitioner on his request. Since the last date is tomorrow, if the petitioner presents himself before the 1st respondent tomorrow, he shall be supplied with tender forms, if he is otherwise entitled to the tender forms. This is without prejudice to the right of the Panchayat to take further proceedings on blacklisting the petitioner, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/