IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24273 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.T.SUNNY,THANDAKKATTIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI PO,WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PWD (R & B),NORTH CIRCLE,CALICUT 673 001. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER,PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24273/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF WORKS IN HAND OF THE PETITIOENR AS ON 22.2.11. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF SURPRISE CHECK REPORT DT 9.3.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT DT 27.3.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 14.7.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.12.2010 FROM THE 2ND RESPODNENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 11.1.2011 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 22.2.11. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF DETAILED REPLY DT 3.3.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID LETTER DT 12.8.11 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 24.8.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 24.8.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24273 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a contractor. It appears that there were certain allegations against the petitioner and the officials of the Public Works Department, which were enquired into by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. The VACB submitted a report and based on the report, 2nd respondent issued Ext.P5 letter to the Superintending Engineer, stating “I am also to request you to take necessary steps to black list Sri.T.T.Sunny, PWD Contractor, as he was involved in various cases”. Pursuant to Ext.P5, petitioner was issued Ext.P6 from the office of the Superintending Engineer calling upon the petitioner to appear and submit his explanation against blacklisting. At that stage, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5844/11 complaining of non supply of documents relied on against him. That writ petition was disposed of and pursuant to the directions of this Court, Exts.P1 to P5 documents were supplied. Proceedings are now pending and the petitioner made Ext.P11 complaint to the Minister also complaining against the proposal of blacklisting. It is WPC No. 24273/11 :2 : at that stage, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 and to hold that the petitioner is not liable to be blacklisted. 2. In my view, the writ petition is premature and as at present, apart from the proposed blacklisting, no order of actual blacklisting has been passed for the petitioner to be aggrieved at this stage. If the rules of the Department permit that a person against whom irregularities have been found is liable to be blacklisted, respondents are certainly entitled to take such steps. However, any such step can only be done in accordance with law and only in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, at this stage, this Court will not be justified in pronouncing on the proceedings against the petitioner for the reason that any such pronouncement will be premature. 3. However, the contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 discloses a direction from the 2nd respondent and therefore the Superintending Engineer and other officials of the department will certainly blacklist him. It is therefore contended that the whole exercise is one in futility. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner against Ext.P5 is concerned, all that the 2nd respondent has done by Ext.P5 is to request the Superintending Engineer to WPC No. 24273/11 :3 : take steps for blacklisting the petitioner. This communication does not mean that there is any direction to blacklist the petitioner and on the other hand, it only directs the Superintending Engineer to take steps for blacklisting the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, necessarily the Superintending Engineer will have to exercise his powers in accordance with law, complying with the principles of natural justice and with due application of mind. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 also does not suffer from any illegality as alleged by the petitioner. In that view of the mater, I decline to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp