IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1510 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20191/2011 Dated 27/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------- 1. AIA ENGINEERING LTD. (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 115, GVMM ESTATE, ODHAV ROAD, AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT). 2. MR.ACHYUT CHANDRAKANT PARISH WORKING AS DGM CORPORATE AFFAIRS AIA ENGINEERING LTD., 115, GVMM ESTATE, ODHAV ROAD, AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT). BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA – 695 001. 2. MALABAR CEMENT LIMITED, WALAYAR 678624, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KANNUR. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL R2 BY SC SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1510 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. The appellant challenged before the learned Single Judge the proposal by the second respondent to blacklist the appellants, which supplied machinery to the second respondent, which is a Government of Kerala Company. The appellants' case is that the second respondent is purely under the control of the State Government and the proposed blacklisting is based on government orders. The learned Single Judge felt that no adverse orders are issued against the appellants and the appellants can file objections to the proposal. 2. The Standing Counsel for the second respondent took notice on admission and submitted that the appellants' objection will be considered based on fresh show cause notice to be issued. Blacklisting of the appellants will be necessary, if only the appellants are involved in or has complicity in the malpractice WA.1510/11 2 that led to loss to the second respondent. The Government would have made the advice based on the vigilance enquiry or other report available with the Government. It is, therefore, for the second respondent to point out the role of the appellants that led to loss to the Company. 3. We do not think there is any need for this Court to consider the issue at this stage, because the appellants are free to raise objections, when the proposal is issued by the second respondent. The Writ Appeal is closed accordingly. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs