IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1447 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BABURAJAN V.K., P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, VANTHUPARAMBIL, P.O.ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 705. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, P.W.D., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-670 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD AND BRIDGES, NORTH CIRLCE, KOZHIKODE. 3. ROAD AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682 025. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO.1447 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a contractor who has been awarded the work of collection of user fee from the road over bridge at Muzhuppilangad, Kannur with effect from 1.8.2010. It appears that the petitioner has defaulted payments that are due to the 3rd respondent. Apprehending that he is likely to be blacklisted on the recommendation of the 3rd respondent he approached this court. Now along with I.A.No.858/2011 petitioner has produced Ext.P9 letter issued by the Superintending Engineer calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he shall not be blacklisted. This letter makes reference to the letter issued by the Chief Engineer directing his blacklisting. Now the petitioner contends that a decision has already been taken to blacklist the petitioner and therefore any response to Ext.P9 is is only an act in futility. It is therefore contended that the proceedings to blacklist the petitioner calls for interference. 2. If a Contractor has committed breach, the awarder is entitled to take action as is permissible under law. That decision WPC No. 1447/2011 :2 : has to be taken by the awarder himself untrammelled by any external influence that is exerted on him. Therefore, the Superintending Engineer cannot be deprived of the opportunity to decide on such issue. This necessarily has to be done by the Superintending Engineer, untrammelled by any direction that was issued by the Chief Engineer. Therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to show cause in response to Ext.P9, in which event, the Superintending Engineering shall consider the matter untrammelled by the directions, if any, issued by the Chief Engineer. It will also be open to the petitioner to seek an opportunity of hearing, in which event, the same shall also be considered. 3. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vi