High Court Kerala High Court

Ambili B vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
Ambili B vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3260 of 2011(F)


1. AMBILI B.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :01/02/2011

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                   W.P.(C) NO. 3260 OF 2011
                  =====================

           Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner claims to be a PWD Contractor. Initially, Ext.P3

order was passed blacklisting the petitioner. That was challenged

before this Court, which resulted in Ext.P4 judgment. Ext.P3 order

was set aside on the ground that the order was passed without

issuing notice to the petitioner and the respondents were directed

to pass fresh orders in the matter with notice to the petitioner.

Petitioner submits that, so far fresh proceedings have not been

initiated and that his registration as a contractor remains valid. It

is stated that, meanwhile tenders were invited by the 4th

respondent and when the petitioner attempted to submit his

tender, that is refused to be accepted on the ground that proposal

for blacklisting is pending. It is aggrieved by the above, the writ

petition is filed.

2. If as stated by the petitioner, no order of blacklisting

has been issued, petitioner’s registration as contractor remains

valid and he is entitled to participate in the tender. Therefore, I

direct that, if order of blacklisting pursuant to the judgment

WPC No. 3260/11
:2 :

referred to above has not been passed and if the petitioner is

otherwise qualified, it will be open to the petitioner to submit his

tender to the 4th respondent, in which event, such tender will also

be considered in accordance with law.

3. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along

with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent for

compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp