IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 84 of 2011(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.P.YAKOOB, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.K.P.KUNHI, PROPRIETOR, EXPERTLINES ENTERPRISES, 5/2848, THIRUTHIYAD, P.O.PUTHIYARA, CALICUT-673 004, RESIDING AT `HARITHAKAM', MAY-DAY ROAD, CHEVAYORR, CALICUT-673 017. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MAVELI BHAVAN,MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SHRI N.D.PREMACHANDRAN,SC,SUPPLYCO FOR R SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.84/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT NIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 25.9.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S2.24889/04 DT 3.2.2010 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2010 IN WPC NO.31804/2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S3.10984/10 DT 29.11.2010 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER NO.M(PUR)/TS/TFPR/624/09 DT 22.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE FACT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER NO.M(M)KE/TPT/2010-11 DT 5.8.2010 BY IFFCO. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF INTENT DT 11.6.2010 BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): A COPY OF THE MINUTES HEAD OFFICE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DT 19.2.2008. EXT.R1(b): A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, PALAKKAD DT 23.2.2008. EXT.R1(c): A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE HEAD OFFICE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DT 12.3.2008. EXT.R1(d): A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE HEAD OFFICE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DT 21.11.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 84 OF 2011 (I) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court complaining that by Ext.P5 order issued by the respondent, he has been blacklisted from the awarding of transport contract. Ext.P5 order was issued by the respondent pursuant to the direction of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment and this order reads as under:- “Please refer to the above. This is to inform that the tender submitted by you as per the references cited,for registering with Supplyco as an empanelled Transport Contractor for transportation of Levy Sugar, cannot be considered on the ground of the decision taken by the Head Office Management Committee of Supplyco. This information is in accordance with the judgment in WP(C) No.31804/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.” 2. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner apart from referring to a decision of the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent, this order does not contain any reasons why the Managing Committee chose to take the decision to exclude the petitioner from awarding of transport contract. Therefore, for that reason itself, Ext.P5 deserves to be set aside. 3. True in the affidavit filed by the respondent, they have WPC No. 84/2011 :2 : assigned various reasons justifying their decision. But as held by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SCC 851), an order issued by an authority cannot be improved by an affidavit filed in Court. Therefore, accepting the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Ext.P5 is quashed. However, quashing of Ext.P5 for the aforesaid reason does not mean that respondent cannot issue fresh proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 and leaving it open to the respondent to pass and communicate a fresh order containing the reasons in support thereof. It is directed that respondent will pass orders as above within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and communicate the same to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp