IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28299 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.G. MEMORIAL LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.A.K. PRAKASH, PRAKASH BUNGALOW, THALASSERY-1. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SHRI.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. SHRI.M.A.ASIF, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28299/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/10/2007 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF the CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.GHSB-35/07 DATED 16/10/2007 ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF the LETTER NO.A4/1007/07 DATED 28/12/2007 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/02/2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF the LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE LAWYER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, HEALTH & TOURISM DEPARTMENT ON 26/05/2008. P7 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/06/2008 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.28299 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 and seeks a direction to respondents 1 & 2 to release payment due under Exts.P1 & P2. Records would show that the petitioner was awarded the contract of garden maintenance and beautification at Guest House, Sultan Bathery during the period from 10/08/2007 to 09/08/2008. The petitioner states that during that period they had executed the work in discharge of his contractual obligations, and that Exts.P1 & P2 bills submitted by him were recommended for payment, by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the payment was not made, and as a result of which, the petitioner could not engage it's workers due to non-availability of funds for payment of wages. 2. According to the petitioner, claiming payment he made Exts.P4 & P5 representations and that as there was no response to these representations, Ext.P6 notice was issued on its behalf. To Ext.P6, the petitioner got Ext.P7 reply, where it was inter alia stated that the contract was terminated with effect from 13/02/2008. The petitioner complains that all the statements in Ext.P7 are incorrect. WP(C) No.28299/2008 -2- It is also contended that before terminating the contract with effect from 13/02/2008, the petitioner was not given even a notice. 3. Though the learned Government Pleader raised dispute about the nature of the performance of the work by the petitioner, admitted position is that, before terminating the contract awarded to the petitioner, no notice was issued to them. In my view, the respondents ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before terminating the contract and therefore, the termination of the contract is clearly violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, the termination of the contract awarded to the petitioner is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to give notice to the petitioner, give it an opportunity to make their representation in the matter and thereafter, decide on the issue of cancellation of the contract awarded to the petitioner. 4. The 1st respondent shall also take a decision on the monetary claims of the petitioner made as per Exts.P1 & P2. 5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg