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. 29824 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT, SCHEDULED CASTE/SHEDULED TRIBE LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.849, KASARAGOD P.O., KASARAGOD-671121, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PORT CONSERVATOR, PORT OFFICE, KASARAGOD-671121. 2. DIRECTOR OF PORTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES & PORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR GP 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: WP(C).No. 29824 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 27/5/11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/6/11 OF THE IST RESPONDENT GRANTING PERMIT FOR MANUAL DREDGING OF SAND. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20/6/11 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE NOTICE DATED 17/8/11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.317/11 DATED 6/9/11 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/10/11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).29824/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. They were awarded a contract by order dated 15.6.2011 for dredging sand. However, by Ext.P6 order, the contract was terminated acting upon certain complaints. According to the petitioner, the complaint was misconceived and termination was without conducting any enquiry. It is now pointed out that in any case, the complaint itself is withdrawn. In such circumstances, they submitted Ext.P7 representation to the first respondent seeking cancellation of Ext.P6 and restoration of the contract. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P7. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Having regard to the case of the Petitioner regarding the pendency of Ext.P7, at this stage, the only order that is required is that the first respondent should consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation. This the first respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within four weeks of W.P.(C).29824/11 2 production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs