IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 31886 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.D.DAVIS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, THACHIL KANNAI HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA EAST P.O. MALA - VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT.OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROADS & BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 1 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROADS & BRIDGES), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101. 4. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.31886/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.E8(SE 5/06/TSR) 13632/06 DATED 27/6/2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.26781/F3/07/PWD DATED 13/11/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.FCR-1536/05 DATED 12/2/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/2/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/3/2008 IN WP(C)NO.6462/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6 COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 24/3/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/6/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.FCR-1536/05 DATED 28/8/2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/9/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.FCR-1536/05(2) DATED 11/3/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/3/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P12 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/4/2010 IN WP(C)NO.12474/2010 OFTHIS HON'BLE COURT. P13 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FCR-1536/2005 DATED 14/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P14 COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 27/9/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P15 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FCR-1536/2005 DATED 7/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P16 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E8 (SC 5/06/TSR) 13632/06 DATED 27/6/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. 2/- 2- WP(C)NO.31886/2010 P17 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FCR-1536/2005 DATED 21/5/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD DIVISION, THRISSUR-3. P18 COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING TENDER NUMBER35/SECCA/2010-2011, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES: ANNEX -R3(A): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.3539/F3/09/PWD DATED 26/6/2009. ANNEX-R3(B): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.FCR-1536/05 DATED 21/5/2010. ANNEX-R3(C): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD DIVISION, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................... W.P.(C).31886/2010 ....................................... Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a Government contractor, who had a valid A Class registration issued by the third respondent, challenges Ext.P15 order. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P3 show cause notice issued by the third respondent proposing to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Ext.P6 is the reply submitted by the petitioner. Again he was issued further notices, the last of which is Ext.P13. In the meanwhile, petitioner had submitted Ext.P11 representation to the third respondent requesting for disclosure of certain documents and, in Ext.P14 explanation submitted by him to Ext.P13 show cause notice, he had reiterated the said plea. Finally Ext.P15 order was issued, cancelling the 'A' Class registration of the petitioner. 3. In this writ petition the main contention raised by the petitioner is that the documents, the disclosure of which was sought, were not disclosed before final order was passed. In so W.P.(C).31886/2010 2 far as this contention of the petitioner is concerned, in Ext.P15 order, it has been stated thus:- ......... Hence final notice has been issued to the contractor by the undersigned as per reference 4th cited. Sri.T.D.Davis, Contractor has submitted a reply vide reference 7th cited requested to produce the true copies of entire file pertaining to the irregularities taken place in the execution of Chilanka-Areeca road. The irregularity taken place in the execution of Chilanka-Areeca road coming under the LSGD Division, Thrissur and not under this office. Vide reference 5th cited this office have already directed the Executive Engineer, LSGD Division, Thrissur to furnish the true copies of the entire file pertaining to the above work to Sri.T.D.Davis, contractor and also directed to Sri.T.D.Davis to contact with the Executive Engineer, LSGD Division, Thrissur for obtaining the above details. But he did not approached to the LSGD Division, Thrissur for collecting the details and it was informed by Executive Engineer, LSGD Division, Thrissur vide reference 6th cited. Vide reference 4th cited final show cause notice issued to him on 14.9.2010 and the reply submitted by him is not satisfactory. It is W.P.(C).31886/2010 3 understood that his intension is to create maximum delay for taking final decision by the undersigned and he is showing an evasive attitude towards the case and not taken any sincere attitude to prove himself even after given sufficient period and opportunity.” 4. The aforesaid contention of the third respondent in Ext.P15 order is also reiterated in the statement filed on behalf of the third respondent. 5. Thus on facts, the contention of the petitioner that he was not disclosed the documents relied on against him is shown to be wrong. If that be the position, in the nature of the allegations that are levelled against the petitioner and which have been found in Ext.P15, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the respondents for having cancelled the registration of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs