IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 14841 of 2007(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- K.V. SIVANANDAN, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, KERALA HOUSE, PONNOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. OLLUKKARA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. SECRETARY, OLLUKKARA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, Respondents SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14841/2007 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DTD. NIL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.8635/07 DTD. 14/03/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 19/04/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 23/03/06 IN WP(C) NO. 34415/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.70/07 DTD. 24/03/07 OF THE OLLUKKARA BLOCK PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT.R2: COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.91/07 DTD. 30/03/07 OF THE OLLUKKARA BLOCK PANCHAYAT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 14841 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner, who is a contractor to the first respondent block Panchayat, challenges in this Writ Petition Ext.P3 re-tender notification as regards the work RIDF Payyanam – Vindasseri – Chennappara Road – Pannasseri work, for which the petitioner has submitted a tender quoting estimate rates. The petitioner points out that the other tender received for this work was above the estimate work, and therefore, the Panchayat was bound to accept the tender submitted by him. According to him, what the Panchayat did was to reject both the tenders and issue Ext.P3 re-tender notification. The Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 on the various grounds raised in this Writ Petition. 2. The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit and relied on Ext.R1 resolution. Under Ext.R1 resolution, the Panchayat takes a general decision not to award works to the petitioner on the reason that the five RIDF works, which had been awarded to him earlier, were not completed by him on time. WPC No.14841/2007 2 It is pointed out that the first work, which was to have been completed by 9.4.2000, was completed only on 25.11.2000 and that as regards the other four works, the delay was more considerable. According to the Panchayat, awarding the work to the petitioner will be against the interest of the Panchayat and thus against the public interest. 3. The residents of the locality have sought their impleadment as per I.A. 1952/2008. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Ranjith Thamban, the learned counsel for the petitioners in that I.A. and he supported the stand of the Panchayat though I have not allowed that I.A. 4. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner is yet to challenge Ext.R1. So long as Ext.R1 stands, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate complaint about the action of the Panchayat in declining to award the work to him. The work is to be executed emergently and further delay in the matter will result in lapsing of the funds, according to the counsel for the Panchayat. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant releif to the petitioner. This Writ Petition will stand dismissed and the order of stay will stand vacated. The WPC No.14841/2007 3 petitioner, however, is permitted to challenge Ext.R1 resolution of the Panchayat in accordance with law, so that the black listing of him by the Panchayat will not be permanent feature. The petitioner will challenge Ext.R1 within two weeks from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk