IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9446 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. LATE K.K.NEELAKANDAN AGED 57 YEARS,'GANGOTHRI', BEHIND MERCY COLLEGE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS'SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPT.(PWD) PALAKKAD. 3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD. SC FOR R1 SRI. T.C.SURESH MENON GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9446 OF 2010 (E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he was awarded a contract for the construction of a portico to the Town Hall of the respondent Municipality. According to him for reasons which were not attributable to him, the site was not handed over and as a result there of work could not even be started. 2. It is stated that at a later stage, due to his illness and other reasons he also intimated the Municipality that he was not interest to continue the contract arrangement. It is stated that subsequently he was issued Ext.P1 notice, asking him to start work and that on his failure the contract will be terminated, security will be forfeited and that he will be blacklisted. To Ext.P1 petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply disputing the allegations. 3. Be that as it may, subsequently Ext.P3 was issued by the Municipality terminating the contract, forfeiting the EMD and to retender the work at his risk and costs. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply stating inter alia that he has no objection in re-tendering the work but however contending that he cannot be fastened with the liability for loss if any that is caused to the WPC.No.9446 /2010 :2 : Municipality. 4. It would appear that the Municipality re-tendered the work for a higher amount. Pursuant there to Municipality issued Ext.P5 calling upon the petitioner to remit a further amount of Rs.1,51,250/- to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply. 5. Thus from the facts it would appear that the work has been terminated, EMD has been forfeited and the petitioner is made liable for the loss allegedly suffered by the Municipality and he has been blacklisted. Although notices have been given, the decision has been taken without hearing the petitioner and therefore the decision is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of this, I direct the Municipality to treat Ext.P5 as notice, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass fresh orders in the matter, taking into account the contentions that the petitioner has against the impugned action. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WPC.No.9446 /2010 :3 :