IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16365 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE.M,PWD CONTRACTOR, MAVILA ROAD,PARAVANADUKKAM.PO,KALANADU VIA, KASARAGOD-671317. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFIARS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY,KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY,KASARGOD MUNICIPALITY, KASARGOD. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3&4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.16365 OF 2009 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a contractor. The 3rd respondent Municipality awarded him the work of construction of Ferro Cement Tanks for rain water harvesting project during the year 2004-05. Petitioner submits that he completed the work. Final bill was submitted by him and after verification, the bill amount claimed by him, viz Rs.7,70,440/- was paid. It is stated that thereafter even security deposit was released to the petitioner. 2. Still later, apparently on the basis of an investigation conducted by the Inspection Wing, Ext.P4 report was submitted to the effect that the work executed by the petitioner was incomplete and substandard. Based on the report the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 to the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P3 the 2nd respondent required the 3rd respondent to blacklist the petitioner and to take steps for recovery of the amount already paid to him. Acting upon Ext.P3, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P2, a communication to the petitioner informing him that he has been blacklisted in pursuance to Ext.P3 and asking him to remit the amount received by him along with interest. He was also called WPC.No.16365 /09 :2 : upon to submit his explanation. 3. Petitioner states that in pursuance to Ext.P2 he submitted Ext.P5 explanation. In Ext.P5 while he denied the allegations, he also expressed his willingness to undertake any repair work which may be found necessary in respect of the work he did. The Municipal Council considered the matter and by Ext.P6 resolution, it was resolved to get the work done by the petitioner inspected and also to forward Ext.P5 explanation submitted by him to the 2nd respondent. In the meantime Secretary of the 3rd respondent Municipality also submitted Ext.P8 report to the 2nd respondent. In pursuance to Ext.P6 resolution under the cover of Ext.P7, the 3rd respondent forwarded Ext.P5 to the 2nd respondent. The matter is pending before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is yet take a final decision in the matter. 4. In the meanwhile the writ petition was filed by the petitioner complaining that he has been blacklisted without notice and because of the illegal blacklisting he is deprived of his chances to get contracts awarded and that he is also exposed to the possibility of coercive action to recover the amount paid to him. 5. The whole grievance of the petitioner originates from Exts.P2 and P3 by which he was blacklisted on the basis of Ext.P4 WPC.No.16365 /09 :3 : report and the direction upon to remit the amount already received by him. 6. From the facts as noticed above, it is evident that on receipt of Ext.P2 petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation which is forwarded by the Municipality to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P7 and that the matter is pending. Since the issue has originated on the directions of the 2nd respondent, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P5 explanation and Ext.P8 report submitted by the Municipality and take a final decision in the matter. 7. Having regard to the fact that as a result of Ext.P2 the petitioner is prevented from getting the work awarded and as he is also exposed to recovery, it is essential that the 2nd respondent shall take his final decision on an expeditious basis. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take a final decision on Ext.P2, in the light of Ext.P5 and Ext.P8. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Before final decision is taken in the matter, notice shall be given to the petitioner also. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WPC.No.16365 /09 :4 : vi/