IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3260 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- AMBILI B., GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, LEKSHMI BAGH, TC 14/496/1, NANDAVANAM ROAD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, PWD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD CITY ROADS SUB DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD CITY ROADS SUB DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3260 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a PWD Contractor. Initially, Ext.P3 order was passed blacklisting the petitioner. That was challenged before this Court, which resulted in Ext.P4 judgment. Ext.P3 order was set aside on the ground that the order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and the respondents were directed to pass fresh orders in the matter with notice to the petitioner. Petitioner submits that, so far fresh proceedings have not been initiated and that his registration as a contractor remains valid. It is stated that, meanwhile tenders were invited by the 4th respondent and when the petitioner attempted to submit his tender, that is refused to be accepted on the ground that proposal for blacklisting is pending. It is aggrieved by the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, no order of blacklisting has been issued, petitioner's registration as contractor remains valid and he is entitled to participate in the tender. Therefore, I direct that, if order of blacklisting pursuant to the judgment WPC No. 3260/11 :2 : referred to above has not been passed and if the petitioner is otherwise qualified, it will be open to the petitioner to submit his tender to the 4th respondent, in which event, such tender will also be considered in accordance with law. 3. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp