IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16816 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.C.CHACKO, VATTUKALAM, CHANNANIKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM KOZHENCHERRY - 686 533. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (G) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, IDUKKI. BY G.P.SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16816 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P5 order, the third respondent terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner at the risk and costs of the petitioner. The petitioner’s contention is that the work could not be completed by the petitioner not because of any fault on the part of the petitioner, but because of other circumstances which is attributable to the officers of the department. The petitioner now submits that subsequent to passing of Ext.P5 order, the Government has initiated certain proceedings to ascertain, whether there was any fault on the part of the department or the contractor in not completing the work in time. He also points out that by Ext.P8, the Government is seized of the matter also. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the matter is liable to be considered by the Government pursuant to Ext.P8. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In so far as subsequent to Ext.P5 order passed by the Superintending Engineer, the Government has initiated some W.P.(c)No.16816/2010 2 proceedings in respect thereof, I am of opinion that those proceedings should be completed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Government to complete the proceedings initiated by Ext.P8, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.16816/2010 3 W.P.(c)No.16816/2010 4