IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27697 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.IBRAHIMKUTTY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, VALIYATH HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 587. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS & BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27697 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be an A Class Contractor of the PWD and and have executed several contract works. It would appear that based on certain complaints, preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, which appears to have submitted Ext.P6 preliminary report to the Government, with a finding that on account of the actions of the petitioner, Government suffered a loss of Rs.16,85,969. Based on Ext.P6, 1st respondent issued Ext.P4 to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent in turn issued Ext.P5 to the 3rd respondent suggesting that action be initiated for blacklisting the petitioner. Not even a notice has been issued on the petitioner on the basis of these proceedings. According to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, he has secured copies of Exts.P4, P5 and P6 and has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P4 and P5 and seeking consequential reliefs. 2. As already seen, no proceedings of any nature has been initiated against the petitioner and what the petitioner WPC No. 27697/10 :2 : challenges are internal communications between the respondents. These proceedings do not disclose any action prejudicial to the petitioner, and in that view of the matter, this writ petition is misconceived and is premature. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp