IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18180 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.N.MOHANAN, CONTRACTOR, NRAYANEEYAM, MADAN NADA, THEKKEVILA PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT II IRRIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT CIRCLE (RIGHT BANK) KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 506. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT (LEFT BANK) DIVISION NO.5 KOLLAM 691 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT (LEFT BANK) SUB DIVISION,NO.19,KOTTIYAM, KOTTIYAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 571. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT (LEFT BANK) DIVISION,NO.13, KOLLAM 691 101. 6. NIRMALA FRANCIS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT (LEFT BANK) SECTION NO.28/19 KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 571. GP SMT. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18180 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.4.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.P1(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING ENDT. Lr.NO.D5/2568 DATD 3.5.11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2(D4) 1090/2010 DATED 24.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.5.11 WRITTEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D5-2568/08 DATED 27.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.E5.1697/11 DATED 22.6.11 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2/D4/1090/2010 DATED 8.6.11 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18180/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a contractor to whom the works of construction of a foot bridge at the Pallimon Distributory was awarded. It appears that soon after the work commenced, he made Ext.P1 representation to the second respondent complaining that the concrete work remains suspended on account of the absence of the Assistant Engineer. On that basis, he sought suitable arrangements be made in order to enable him to continue the work. 2. It appears that subsequently the third respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 24.5.2011. This order does not make any reference to Ext.P1 representation; but that a request made by the Contractor for change of the Assistant Engineer is mentioned in this order. On that basis, the Assistant Engineer KIP (LB) Section No.21/13, Kollam, was ordered to supervise the execution of the work. 3. On the issuance of Ext.P2, the fifth respondent issued Ext.P3 letter to the second respondent, requesting for issuing orders, to the Kottiyam Sub Division of the Department to continue the work W.P.(C).18180/11 2 and thus restore the position prior to Ext.P2. On that basis, Ext.P4 was issued by the second respondent to the third respondent accepting the request. It appears that the petitioner obtained a copy of Ext.P4 under the Right to Information Act. 4. Later by Ext.P6, the fifth respondent also required the petitioner to complete the work without any further delay. There upon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation to the first respondent requesting for restoration of Ext.P2 order. Orders were not passed on Ext.P7. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking mainly an order requiring to restore Ext.P2 order. 5. In this writ petition, there is an allegation that the sixth respondent demanded illegal of ratification of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner and it was therefore, that he made Ext.P1 representation which resulted in Ext.P2 order. However, such an allegation is not raised either in Ext.P1 representation on the basis of which Ext.P2 order was issued nor is there any such findings in Ext.P2 order. In such a situation, I am not prepared to act upon the aforesaid unsubstantiated and baseless allegation made by the petitioner. W.P.(C).18180/11 3 6. In am inclined to think that when a work awarded by the Department, it is upto the Department to chose the Officer who is to supervise the work and the contractor who is to execute the work in terms of the contract should have no say in fresh matters. On the other hand, Ext.P2 shows that the Department has willingly accepted the request of the petitioner for change of the Supervising Engineer. Even after such a decision has been take, if the Department has chosen to effect any change in such arrangements, in the absence of any mala fides, such decision should be upheld. Petitioner has not succeeded in showing any mala fides or arbitrariness in this matter and hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. I am also of the view that Ext.P2 created no vested right in favour of the petitioner and that by Ext.P4, no such right of the petitioner stands violated warranting interference of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs