IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29754 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ROJIMON JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, M/S.J&P ASSOCIATES, IV/388, FACTORY ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACT), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020. R1 BY SMT.S.KARTHIKA, SC, FCI R3 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.29754/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 8.1.09 IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD GRAINS FROM THIKODI TO MEENANGADI ISSUED BY FCI. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 8.1.09 IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD GRAINS FROM WEST HILL TO MEENANGADI ISSUED BY FCI. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE WORK ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THIKODI TO MEENANGADI. EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE WORK ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR WEST HILL TO MEENANGADI. EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19.10.2010 ISSUED BY FCI TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.10.2010 TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.10.2010 TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.11.2010 TERMINATING THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 3.11.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE REST OF THE PERIOD IN FAVOUR OF M/S.MRS ROADWAYS. EXHIBIT P10 : COPY OF THE FRESH TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THIKODI TO MEENANGADI. EXHIBIT P11 : COPY OF THE FRESH TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF WEST HILL TO MEENANGADI. EXHIBIT P12 : COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY, DT.20.10.2010. EXHIBIT P13 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.41,70,983/-. EXHIBIT P14 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.5.2011 OF THE RESPONDENT FORFEITING THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.12.65 LAKHS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND DEMANDING THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.29,05,983.76. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AV ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29754 of 2011 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. 2. Petitioner was a transport contractor, who was issued Exts.P3 and P4 work orders for transportation of food grains from West Hill and Thikodi to Meenangadi depots of respondents 1 and 2. Alleging certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner, he was issued Ext.P5 show cause notice and finally, the work orders were terminated by Ext.P8 order dated 03.11.2010. Immediately thereafter, fresh work order was issued to another contractor. The termination by Ext.P8 order was at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Now, Exts.P13 and P14 have been issued to the petitioner, informing forfeiture of the security deposit of W.P.(C) No.29754/2011 : 2 : `12,65,000/- and ordering recovery of balance amount of `29,05,983.76. It is challenging Exts.P13 and P14, the writ petition is filed. 3. Although various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging Exts.P5, P8, P13 and P14, I am not inclined to entertain any challenge against Exts.P5 and P8 at this distance of time. 4. However, in so far as Exts.P13 and P14 are concerned, though in terms of the contract between the parties and Ext.P8 order the termination is at his risk and cost, what is demanded in Exts.P13 and P14 is the alleged actual additional expense incurred by the respondents in making alternate arrangements as a consequence of Ext.P8 order. This involves quantification of the liability and it could not have been unilaterally done by the respondents. 5. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that Exts.P13 and P14 ordering forfeiture and requiring the petitioner to remit balance amount is premature and that W.P.(C) No.29754/2011 : 3 : these communications should be treated as show cause notices enabling the petitioner to file his objections in the matter. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- That Exts.P13 and P14 will be treated as show cause notices and it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections in the matter, which the petitioner shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within four weeks from today. On receipt of the objections to Exts.P13 and P14 as above, first respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and take a fresh decision in the matter. Needless to say that till such time, further coercive action based on the impugned orders shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/09/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge