IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 489 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29784/2008 Dated 03/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SURESH S., KAITHAVALAPPIL, THYCKAL P.O. CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SR), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 489 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. Appellant impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this Writ Appeal to the extent it allowed the respondents to re-tender the work involving supply and laying distribution lines at Coaster Wards and repair of Over Head Tank at Kummady within the limits of Alappuzha Municipality. 2. Admittedly, the above work was part of the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. The respondents decided to re-tender the above work since, according to them, the appellant did not enter into the necessary agreement, with the result the work in question could not be commenced. Any how, we do not propose to deal with that issue any further in view of the intervening development. 3. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition held that the decision of the respondents to blacklist the appellant is not just and proper. But at the same time WA No. 489 of 2009 -:2:- the learned Judge took the view that the respondents were amply justified in re-tendering the work at the risk and cost of the appellant. The latter part of the judgment mentioned earlier is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. 4. It is beyond controversy that the work has already been re-tendered. It is brought to our notice that the appellant proposes to challenge the subsequent order of blacklisting issued by the respondent pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. What remains is only the question as regards the justifiability of the order passed by the respondents to re-tender the work at the risk and cost of the appellant. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the said issue has to be necessarily considered by the competent authority under the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant will be satisfied, if an appropriate direction is issued to the authority concerned to take a decision in the matter with an open mind. WA No. 489 of 2009 -:3:- 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the Superintending Engineer(PH Circle), Water Authority, Kottayam is the competent authority to deal with the issue. 7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case the Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following directions: If the appellant submits a representation highlighting all his grievances within two weeks from today, before the Superintending Engineer(PH Circle), Water Authority, Kottayam, the said officer shall consider the same and take a decision thereon strictly on its merit and in accordance with law. It shall be ensured by the said authority that the appellant is given sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken. We make it clear that the authority shall not be swayed or influenced by Exts.P11 and P13 orders or the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The Superintending Engineer shall take a decision on the representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, WA No. 489 of 2009 -:4:- within one month from the date of receipt thereof. Appellant shall produce a copy of the Writ Appeal and all exhibits and a copy of the judgment before the Superintending Engineer along with the representation. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb