IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 5437 of 2008(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.JOHN, POOMTHOTTATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NECHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS AND BRIDGES, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BUILDINGS (SZ), PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, P.M.G.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 5437 OF 2008 - V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to impugn Ext. P6 by which the earnest money deposit of Rs.63,000/- made by the petitioner has been forfeited. 2. The basis on which the forfeiture is ordered is that the petitioner did not remit the amounts in terms of the agreement dated 26.8.2005 that he had entered into with the respondents for toll collection. According to the petitioner during the period of the alleged default the road was closed and therefore there was no toll collection. Petitioner has also produced Ext. P2 the receipts of payments that he has made. 2. The contention that is mainly pressed before me is that before issuing Ext. P6 order of forfeiture of the earnest money deposit, the petitioner was not issued a show cause notice calling upon him to show why forfeiture shall not be ordered. The fact that no such notice was given to the petitioner does not seem to be in dispute. If that be so, I feel in the matter of issuing Ext. P6, principles of natural justice have been violated. W.P.(C) No. 5437 OF 2008 - 2 - 3. Accordingly, I direct the 4th respondent who has issued Ext. P6, to issue a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the earnest money deposit shall not be forfeited. Once notice is so given, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file his reply and if he so desires he should also be given a chance to be heard in person. 4. The entire matter shall be reconsidered and fresh orders shall be passed by the 4th respondent. In order to enable the 4th respondent to do so and without expressing anything on the merits, I quash Ext. P6 order. The 4th respondent shall issue notice, hear the petitioner, consider the matter and pass revised orders as directed above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-