IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29784 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH S. KAITHAVALAPPIL, THYCKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SR), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.M.DINESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29784/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was awarded a work of supplying and laying distribution lines at Coaster Wards and overhead tank repair in Alappuzha Municipality. This is part of Tsunami Rehabilitation. It seems that the petitioner has failed to execute the agreement in spite of more than one direction issued in that behalf by the competent authority of the Water Authority. According to the petitioner, agreement could not be executed on account of a rise in the price of the construction materials. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Water Authority, reference is made to the repeated requests made to the petitioner to execute the deed. Reference is also made to Ext.P5. It indicates that ultimately though reluctantly the Water Authority had agreed for a hike in the rates. By Ext.P11 order petitioner was intimated that on account of the nature of the urgency W.P.(C).29784/2008 2 of the work, it has been decided by the Water Authority to cancel the work order issued to the petitioner, forfeiting the security amount and rearranging the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner. There is also a decision to blacklist the petitioner. Ext.P11 has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Water Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work become non feasible on account of hike in the prices of cement and steel and that is why the petitioner was not in a position to execute the deed. In my view, if there is a provision in the tender for executing the work at the rates which had been quoted, then it may not be correct on the part of the petitioner in insisting to hold a pre-condition for the execution of the agreement. At any rate, petitioner’s request, at least in part, was accepted by the Water Authority. W.P.(C).29784/2008 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only on account of personal inconvenience that he could not attend the conference convened by the Executive Engineer and drastic action in the nature of Ext.P11 should not have followed. 6. In so far as the cancellation of the work is concerned and the consequential decision to rearrange the same at the risk and cost of the petitioner, I find little grounds to interfere with Ext.P11 order. Going by the nature of the work, Water Authority was justified in seeking emergent action. 7. But the same cannot be said as regards the decision to blacklist the petitioner. An isolated instance may not be sufficient to blacklist the contractor as such. At any rate, proposal for blacklisting the petitioner was not separately communicated to him. A decision to blacklist a contractor entails civil consequences and W.P.(C).29784/2008 4 obviously it should have been preceded by a separate notice in that regard. 8. For all these reasons, Ext.P11 is set aside to the extent to which it blacklists the petitioner. It is open to the Water Authority to issue a separate notice to the petitioner, give him an opportunity to file objections to the proposal for blacklisting him and then take a decision in that regard, after hearing him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs