IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 6462 of 2008(T) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- T.D.DAVIS, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, THACHIL KANNAI HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA EAST P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS & BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6462 OF 2008 T ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a contractor. Following receipt of Ext.P2 report of the 4th respondent and in pursuance to Ext.P3, 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P4 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action against him for cancelling his contract licence shall not be taken. Petitioner has not filed any reply to Ext.P4, but has submitted Ext.P5 to the 4th respondent to review Ext.P2 report submitted to the 1st respondent. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P3 and P4 and to direct the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation. 2. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Ext.P3 has been issued by the Secretary to Government, the 3rd respondent who has issued show cause notice will be guided only by the direction contained WPC 6462/08 :2 : in Ext.P3 and that there will not be an independent adjudication of the issues involved. I am not in a position to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. If 3rd respondent is the competent authority to decide on the cancellation of the petitioner's licence, it is for the 3rd respondent to independently decide on the issue. True Ext.P2 is one of the materials that is available before the 3rd respondent to be considered along with the reply to be submitted in response to Ext.P4. Ext.P3 at best can only be taken as a communication forwarding Ext.P2 to the 3rd respondent and requiring the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action in the matter and this letter cannot be taken as one concluding the issue against the petitioner. Therefore, leaving it to the 3rd respondent to decide Ext.P4 show cause notice, this writ petition is disposed of ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp