IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38083 of 2010(I)
1. D. BHANU, S/O. DAMODARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.38083 OF 2010(I)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Government Contractor. On 4.11.2007, a
notice, inviting tenders for the work of road from Pookoyikkal
Colony Junction to Kodiyil Kayalvaram coming under the Kollam
Division of Harbour Engineering Department, was published.
When the said notice was published, petitioner submitted an
application for the issuance of tender documents. To that
application he was issued Ext.P2 reply informing that the Chief
Engineer has vide his letter dated 26.11.2010, directed that since
the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case involving offences
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, petitioner shall be
excluded from issuing of tender documents. It is stated that
therefore the petitioner cannot be issued tender documents.
According to the petitioner, to his knowledge, he is not an
accused in any crime and that Ext.P2 amounts to blacklisting. It is
with this allegation that this writ petition is filed.
2. Taking note of the averments in the writ petition that the
petitioner was unaware of any proceedings as mentioned in
WPC.No.38083 /2010
:2 :
Ext.P2, this court had directed the Government Pleader to obtain
instructions from the Chief Engineer. Accordingly, Government
Pleader has obtained instructions and submits that in relation to
the work executed by the petitioner for Fisheries Harbour at
Chiravathur, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has
registered a case C.C.No.5/2007 and that the petitioner is the 5th
accused in that case. It is submitted that accused No.1 to 4 are
departmental officers. It is further submitted that in view of the
above Government have issued a direction to the Chief Engineer
to exclude the petitioner from issuing tender documents till the
disposal of the case and that it was in pursuance to the said
direction, the Chief Engineer has issued the letter dated
26.11.2010, mentioned in Ext.P2.
3. Now that from the facts disclosed by the Learned
Government Pleader, it is evident that the petitioner is an
accused in a criminal case, I think that during the pendency of
the criminal case, Government is at liberty to exclude the
petitioner from awarding contracts. Such a decision taken by the
Government cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide
warranting interference of this court. If that be so, the refusal of
WPC.No.38083 /2010
:3 :
the respondents to issue tender documents to the petitioner
cannot be faulted.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/