IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18530 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.TRANS-INDOJAP MARINE CONTRACTING COMPANY WLL,KUWAIT, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, P.J.TOMMY,S/O.P.A.JOSEPH,AGED 52 YEARS, PUTHNANGADY HOUSE, GREEN VILLA, CHILAVANNOR ROAD, KOCHI-20. 2. M/S.INDOJAP SHIPYARD, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHARA PO, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LIMITED, NATTAKOM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR(THE PSU LEAD PARTNER). ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,TRA.CEMENTS LT FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.18530/2010-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the non- consideration of Exts.P5 and P6 and, accordingly, they are seeking for a direction to the respondent to consider on merit the same, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 2. The first petitioner is a Marine Contracting Company, having its office in Kuwait City with a local office. The second petitioner is the consortium partner of the first petitioner who is also engaged in similar business as that of the first petitioner. The respondent, as per Ext.P2 series, invited tender for the purpose of 'Dredging and Environmental Rejuvenation of Akkulam Lake'. This work was allocated to the respondent by the Irrigation Department of the Government of Kerala. It is the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner for and on behalf of the Consortium offered to execute the work order and also to remit the amount in terms with Clause 15, the same was not permitted and it was also mentioned that all payments on completion of each work as stipulated in work order will be paid directly to the first petitioner and not to the second petitioner even though authorised by the W.P.(C). No.18530/2010 -:2:- Consortium documents. It is in these circumstances, the first petitioner has filed Exts.P5 and P6 before the respondent. 3. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that already the representations have been considered. 4. Along with I.A.No.7964/2010, the petitioners have produced the communication disposing of Exts.P5 and P6 as per Ext.P7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a decision as reflected in Ext.P7 has been taken without hearing the petitioners. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the first petitioner can be given a fresh opportunity in the matter and that the respondent will pass a fresh order after affording a hearing also. Therefore, in order to enable the respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter, Ext.P7 is quashed. A fresh decision will be taken after hearing the first petitioner within a period of ten days from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms