IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32873 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH.K. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 35, S/O. JOSEPH,DEVADAN DEVELOPERS, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, M O ROAD, THRISSUR-680001. 3. THE KERALA SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, REP. BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR, SAKTHAN ARCADE, THRISSUR-680001. SC FOR CORPORATION SRI. K.B. MOHANDAS GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.32873 OF 2010(H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8. It would appear that the petitioner was awarded contract for the construction of an open well at Kannamkulangara Thuruth colony. As per the Government Order issued, petitioner ought to have completed the work by 7.7.2010 but the work remains incomplete for reasons attributable to the respondents. 2. Be that as it may, despite various exchange of communications between the parties the petitioner has now been issued Ext.P8 making allegations against him and calling upon him to show cause for not terminating the contract and re-tendering the work. Petitioner states that facts alleged in Ext.P8 are incorrect. If it so, it is for the petitioner to show cause against Ext.P8 and it is for the respondents to consider his versions. 3. Petitioner states that by Ext.P7 he already appraised the correct facts to the respondents. He therefore requests that Ext.P7 may be treated as a reply to Ext.P6 and respondents may decide on WPC.No. 32873/2010 :2 : the issue. 4. In that view of the matte, I direct that the 3rd respondent, who has issued Ext.P8 shall reconsider Ext.P8 in the light of Ext.P7, the letter sent by the petitioner. 5. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent who thereon shall consider the issue as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/