IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 W.A.No. 582 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1388/2008 DATED 26/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- GEORGE JOSEPH, THURUTHIKIZHAKKEL HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDY P.O., VATHYKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- VATHYKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.582 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Being aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Vathykkudy Grama Panchayat, Idukki District ('Grama Panchayat' for short), the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1388 of 2008. 2. The learned Single Judge accepted the version of the petitioner, but however, declined to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. That is how the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondent Grama Panchayat without blacklisting the appellant after issuing an appropriate show cause notice, could not have rejected the tender forms submitted by the appellant. Therefore, submits that the action of the respondent Grama Panchayat in passing Exts.P6 and P7 orders is not only arbitrary but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat would inform us that the appellant had defaulted on two or three previous occasions and therefore, the respondent is justified in rejecting the tender forms submitted by the appellant. 5. The only issue that crops up for our consideration and decision in this writ appeal is whether the respondent was justified in issuing Exts.P6 and P7 orders, in so far as it relates to the appellant. 6. Obviously, our answer is no. If for any reason, the respondent Grama Panchayat wanted to blacklist the appellant, they should have issued W.A.No.582 of 2008 2 appropriate show cause notice to the appellant and after hearing him should have passed an appropriate order. It is only thereafter that they could have issued Exts.P6 and P7 orders. Since that has not been done, in our opinion, Exts.P6 and P7, in so far as it relates to the appellant, require to be set aside and a direction requires to be issued to the respondent Grama Panchayat to consider the tender forms submitted by the appellant in accordance with law and in accordance with the terms and conditions imposed in the tender forms itself. Liberty is also reserved to the Grama Panchayat to initiate appropriate proceedings, if they so desire, to blacklist the appellant in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns