IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 761 of 2004(B)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
Vs
1. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI,
... Respondent
2. C.MURALEEDHARAN, PATTINEZHUTHU VEEDU,
3. P.SOMAN PILLAI, KARUKATHOOR
4. D.BHANU, CONTRACTOR, GINJA BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.761 of 2004
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 15th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
The State represented by the Secretary, Department of Ports
and Engineering along with certain other officials has preferred this writ
appeal calling in question the legality and propriety of the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the original
petition.
2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed the original petition
way back in the year 2001 praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to
quash Ext.P8 tender notification issued by the Executive Engineer in the
Department of Harbour Engineering under the Government of Kerala.
Under the said notification dated June 13, 2001, tenders were invited
from willing contractors for removal of the sand dredged at Neendakara
Fishing Harbour on payment of a fixed price per cubic metre.
Respondents 1 to 3 contended that their job opportunities would be lost if
the right to remove the sand is given to a contractor pursuant to Ext.P8
W.A.No.761 of 2004
– 2 –
notification. According to the respondents, they had been engaged in the
said work for years together.
3. The learned Single Judge was not inclined to grant the main
relief of quashing Ext.P8 notification. However, while disposing of the
original petition the learned Single Judge directed that the successful
tenderer shall ensure that he engages respondents 1 to 3 also for the work
tendered as per Ext.P8 notification.
4. The appellants take exception to the above direction issued
by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the learned Government
Pleader that the above condition imposed by the learned Single Judge will
cause unnecessary impediment to the department in disposal of the sand at
market rates. It is pointed out by him that sand is now being sold well
below the Public Works Department rates and only if the department is
permitted to invite tenders from willing contractors the Government would
be able to get the market price. In view of the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge no contractor is coming forward to take up the
contract. It is in this context that the learned Government Pleader has
prayed for deleting the above condition imposed by the learned Single
W.A.No.761 of 2004
– 3 –
Judge. The learned Government Pleader, however, submits that those
workers who have been engaged for removal of sand from that area will be
given preference in the work which they had been hitherto doing. The
Government is prepared to incorporate appropriate clause in the tender
notification to be issued for this purpose.
5. Having heard learned Government Pleader and the learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge imposing a condition that the successful tenderer
should engage respondents 1 to 3 also cannot be justified. Therefore, the
said condition/direction in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is
deleted. The impugned judgment is modified to the above extent.
Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer,
Judge
vns