IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2113 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUNIL P.B, S/O.LATE E.BALANANDAN, PONNAMKULATH HOUSE, N.KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 104. BY ADV. SRI.V.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CORPORATION ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI-11. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. POULOSE GEORGE, POULOSE GEORGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., KARIMUGAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R1 & 2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.M.K.C.DAS, SC, COCHIN CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2113 OF 2010 (L) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was awarded the work of construction of compound wall at the Brahmapuram Waste Management Plant. Although the petitioner has executed a part of the work, at a later point of time, the work was cancelled and the consequent proceedings initiated by the Corporation were subject matter of WP(C) No.17679/09 and that writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 14/8/09. 2. Against that judgment, the petitioner filed WA No.2228/09. That writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment recording the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation that earnest efforts are being made to sort out the matter with the co-operation of the petitioner and the person who was the successful tenderer in the retender process. 3. According to the petitioner, despite the submission so made, without taking any steps with notice to him for sorting out the disputes between the parties, the Corporation was proceeding to entrust the work to the successful tenderer. It is with this WPC 2113/10 :2 : grievance, the writ petition is filed. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Corporation producing Ext.R1A resolution No.26 dated 14/1/2010. A reading of this resolution shows that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, without issuing notice to the petitioner or hearing him, the Corporation considered the relative merits of the offer made by the petitioner and the successful tenderer in the retender. On that basis, the Corporation resolved to accept the offer made by the successful tenderer M/s.Poulose George Construction Company Limited. Evidently therefore, the decision as reflected in Ext.R1A was taken to the exclusion of the petitioner and on the merits of the controversy. It is not in accordance with the spirit of Ext.P9 judgment rendered by the Division Bench disposing of the writ appeal filed by the petitioner for the reason that the resolution does not reflect any attempt to amicably sort out the issues. Therefore, Ext.R1A cannot be taken as a decision taken in compliance with the judgment. Necessarily therefore, the Corporation will have to reconsider the claim of the petitioner with notice to him and with an intention to sort out the dispute on an WPC 2113/10 :3 : amicable basis. Ofcourse, if the Corporation does not succeed in its endeavour, it is always open to the Corporation to go ahead with the rentendering process and its finalisation. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That as Ext.R1A is not in compliance with Ext.P9 judgment, the Corporation shall reconsider the grievance of the petitioner with notice to him. (2) On such reconsideration, a fresh resolution will be passed. (3) It is clarified that if the attempt does not succeed in sorting out the issue, it will be open to the Corporation to proceed with the work by awarding it to the successful tenderer. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp