IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 14001 of 2004(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.L. ANTONY, PWD CONTRACTOR, PAREKKADAN HOUSE, P.O. MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARIARKUTTY IRRIGATION PROJECT DIVISION KOZHINJAMPARA. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14001/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.3.04 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MALAMPUZHA CANAL SECTION, PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31.3.04 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF LBC SUB DIVISION, PALAKKAD, TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE PLAN/SKETCH FOR RECTIFICATION WORK FORWARDED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF LBC SUB DIVISION , PALAKKAD. P4:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 31.3.04. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.4.04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE REPREPSENTATION DT. 20.4.04 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 20.4.04 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE PROVISION OF THE PWD MANUAL CONCERNING REMOVAL OF CONTRACTOR FROM THE APPROVED LIST AND BLACK LISTING. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14001 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P5, whereby the petitioner has been proposed to be blacklisted on account of certain defects in the work done by him. The petitioner inter alia contends that such a drastic step attracting civil consequences to the petitioner could not have been taken without affording an opportunity of being heard, which is the settled law. In view of the said specific contention raised by the petitioner, I asked the learned Government Pleader as to whether it is correct that the petitioner was not heard before blacklisting him. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext. P5 is not an order blacklisting the petitioner but only a proposal and the order of blacklisting has to be passed by the appropriate authority, which the District Collector is not. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appropriate authority to consider the matter of blacklisting the petitioner and pass orders in respect of the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/