IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27200 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.BHASKARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 'PRANAVAM', KOOVODE, P.O.KUTTIKKOL, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.P.M.SHIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS & LOCAL WORKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD (B & LW), NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (B) SUB DIVISION, THALASSERY - 670 101. GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27200 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 25128/10 DATED 4.4.2011 EXT.P-2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.RT NO.1153/2011/PWD DT.5.9.2011 EXT.P-3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8.4.2009. EXT.P-4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.4.2009 EXT.P-5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.3.2010. EXT.P-6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.4.2009 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENTS EXT.P-7 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER DATED 21.12.2007 EXT.P-8 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.3.2010. EXT.P-9 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER NO.DB2/3868/2000 DATED 19.11.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. (True copy) P.A To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27200/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner was awarded a contract work for the construction of PWD Rest House at Peravoor in Kannur District. By Ext.P9 order dated 19.11.2010, the third respondent terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Although various contentions have been raised on the merits, the main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order was issued without notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity to put forward his case. The fact that notice was not issued to the petitioner is evident from Ext.P9 itself, which does not contain any statement to the contrary. However, the learned Government Pleader objects granting relief to the petitioner pointing out that Ext.P9 order was issued as early as on 19.11.2010. 3. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been specifically stated thus:- W.P.(C).27200/11 2 “Without hearing the petitioner and without putting him on notice an order is issued by the 3rd respondent dated 19.11.2010 communicated to the petitioner on 3.8.2011 whereby the agreement has been terminated.” 4. In the light of the specific averment of the petitioner, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the writ petition is belated. From the above, it is obvious that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reason, the said order cannot be sustained. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. Ext.P9 order dated 19.11.2010 will be treated as a notice and it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections in the matter to the third respondent. If the petitioner files his objections as above within three weeks from today, the third respondent will issue notice to the petitioner, here him and pass fresh orders in the matter. W.P.(C).27200/11 3 Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs