IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2290 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- T.K.GOPALAN, S/O. KUNJUNNI, AGED 54 YRS, THEKKEPPURATH HOUSE, CHALISSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 536. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. T.M.KUNJUKUTTAN, PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING CHALISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, CHALISSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 536. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHALISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHALISSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 536. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. SECTION, CHALISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHALISSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 536. 4. V.ABOOBAKKAR, PWD CONTRACTOR, KIZHAYOOR P.O. 5. T.UNNIMON, THAYAKATTIL HOUSE, PERUMANNOOR P.O. 6. T.A.SAIDU MOHAMMED, PWD CONTRACTOR, MEZHATHUR P.O. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2290/2008 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE 'C' CLASS LICENSE NO.C11” ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, PALAKKAD DTD. 15/01/05. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN THE DESABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 3/01/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH ENDORSEMENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.11/01/2008 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF AGENDA OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 24/12/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE CHALISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 24/12/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.2290 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 6th February, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner who was a contractor to the respondent-Panchayat for executing several works during the past years is that on the basis of Ext.P6 resolution, tender forms are not being supplied to him though he wanted to submit tenders in response to Ext.P2 notification for the works mentioned in Ext.P3. Even though a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat justifying its decision, it is fairly agreed before me by the counsel for the Panchayat that the writ petitioner was not heard by the Panchayat before Ext.P6 resolution which amounts to blacklisting the petitioner was passed. Under these circumstances, I quash Ext.P6 and direct the Panchayat to take a decision as to how the works mentioned in Ext.P3 should be awarded after hearing the petitioner also. It is open to the petitioner to urge before the Panchayat during hearing that the Panchayat must adopt the process of retender and that he also shall be permitted to submit tender. The Panchayat shall ensure compliance of the above directions at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No. - 2 -