IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 761 of 2004(B) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.19243/2001 Dated 11/02/2002 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE OP ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PORTS AND ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NEENDAKARA FISHING HARBOUR DIVISION, PORTS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE OP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, PUTHENPURATHEKKATHIL, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM 2. C.MURALEEDHARAN, PATTINEZHUTHU VEEDU, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. P.SOMAN PILLAI, KARUKATHOOR PADINJATTATHIL, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. D.BHANU, CONTRACTOR, GINJA BHAVAN, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PRAKASH PUTHIYADAM R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.761 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 15th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The State represented by the Secretary, Department of Ports and Engineering along with certain other officials has preferred this writ appeal calling in question the legality and propriety of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the original petition. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed the original petition way back in the year 2001 praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 tender notification issued by the Executive Engineer in the Department of Harbour Engineering under the Government of Kerala. Under the said notification dated June 13, 2001, tenders were invited from willing contractors for removal of the sand dredged at Neendakara Fishing Harbour on payment of a fixed price per cubic metre. Respondents 1 to 3 contended that their job opportunities would be lost if the right to remove the sand is given to a contractor pursuant to Ext.P8 W.A.No.761 of 2004 - 2 - notification. According to the respondents, they had been engaged in the said work for years together. 3. The learned Single Judge was not inclined to grant the main relief of quashing Ext.P8 notification. However, while disposing of the original petition the learned Single Judge directed that the successful tenderer shall ensure that he engages respondents 1 to 3 also for the work tendered as per Ext.P8 notification. 4. The appellants take exception to the above direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the above condition imposed by the learned Single Judge will cause unnecessary impediment to the department in disposal of the sand at market rates. It is pointed out by him that sand is now being sold well below the Public Works Department rates and only if the department is permitted to invite tenders from willing contractors the Government would be able to get the market price. In view of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge no contractor is coming forward to take up the contract. It is in this context that the learned Government Pleader has prayed for deleting the above condition imposed by the learned Single W.A.No.761 of 2004 - 3 - Judge. The learned Government Pleader, however, submits that those workers who have been engaged for removal of sand from that area will be given preference in the work which they had been hitherto doing. The Government is prepared to incorporate appropriate clause in the tender notification to be issued for this purpose. 5. Having heard learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge imposing a condition that the successful tenderer should engage respondents 1 to 3 also cannot be justified. Therefore, the said condition/direction in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is deleted. The impugned judgment is modified to the above extent. Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K.Basheer, Judge vns