IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21425 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.M. MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 51, S/O.MUHAMMED, CONTRACTOR, PALLINILAM HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O, ALUVA-5. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.K.KRISHNANKUTTY NAYAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.M. PRABHAKARAN, EXCISE ENGINEER, P.H DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).21425/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Civil Contractor, who claims to have undertaken several works including maintenance of Water Distribution Lines in the Cochin Corporation area under the Water Authority. A tender was floated by the water Authority for the maintenance work of water distribution lines in the Cochin Corporation for the year 2004-05. According to the petitioner, second respondent was the Executive Engineer of the Public Health Division. Apparently, when the tender was proposed to be awarded in favour of the highest bidder overlooking the petitioner, who was the lowest tenderer, he approached this Court in W.P.(C).4766/2005. The said writ petition was closed on the basis of the submission made by the Water Authority that the tender was cancelled. Instead of re- tendering the work, it was got done through Sri.V.T.Mathew, who was the highest bidder. Petitioner again approached this Court in Writ Petition No.32421/2005, which was disposed of under Ext.P1 W.P.(C).21425/2008 2 judgment directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation. Pursuant thereto, a decision was taken as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3. But since no follow up action was apparently taken, petitioner again approached the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thrissur, as per Ext.P4 complaint, which has been forwarded to the Director of Vigilance for investigation. The immediate grievance of the petitioner is Ext.P5 order by which the second respondent has been posted to the P.H.Division, Kochi, where he had earlier worked as Executive Engineer at the time of tender for the year 2004-05 which has been referred to above. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Managing Director and he has then approached this Court challenging Ext.P5. 2. Petitioner is not in the service of the Water Authority. He claimed to have undertaken certain works in the Water Authority. He is therefore, a contractor. I W.P.(C).21425/2008 3 find it difficult to appreciate the locus standi claimed by the petitioner challenging the order of transfer of an Executive Engineer. Petitioner may have a grievance against the action taken by the second respondent and therefore, he has approached the Vigilance Court. In my view, he has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P5. Order of transfer is passed by the competent authority of the Water Authority. It may even be possible to say that the writ petition is an abuse of process of Court. Since I am not issuing notice to the second respondent, I am refraining from imposing costs on the petitioner. 3. Writ petition is misconceived and bereft of merit and hence dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs