IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5560 of 2008(J)
1. C.T.SEETHI KOYA,THAZHAPUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
5. COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT
6. V.P.MUHAMMED,TAJ MAHAL HOUSE
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHARAM.P
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).5560 of 2008 J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 by
which he has black listed and prevented from being
awarded any contract.
2. In the counter affidavit, it is stated
as follows:
“On scrutiny of the part bills and
the vouchers enclosed therein has found
suspicious and hence requested to KGST
Department for further verification and
genuines of the bill. Meanwhile finance
(Inspection Wing NTF) Department
inspected the bill and verified along
with KGST Department. After enquiry,
the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance)
reported that the bill in question
(Ext.P5) was not issued by the dealer
and it is fabricated and printed by the
contractor himself and the same is a
false document and suggested to take
urgent action against the contractor as
specified in Ext.P9. Since the work was
awarded to the petitioner and he himself
signed the agreement before the PWD
authority to cary out the work according
to the guidelines of PWD, and therefore
the contractor colluded with Power of
Attorney holder 6th respondent and made
the fabricate documents to grab the
public money, hence both are liable.
W.P.(C).5560 of 2008
:: 2 ::
It is submitted that petitioner has
appointed a Power of Attorney
V.P.Muhammed S/o.Ahammedkutty, the
respondent No.6 in this writ petition )
and executed the agreement thereto on
17th December, 2005. In the said
agreement is specifically stated that “I
hereby agree that all acts, deeds and
things done by my said attorney shall be
construed as acts, deeds and things done
by me and I undertake to ratify and
confirm all and whatsoever that my said
attorney shall lawfully do or cause to
be done for me by virtue of the powers
hereby given.” In the above circumstance
it is presumed that all acts done in
this regard by the 6th respondent is with
the concurrence of the petitioner, and
the petitioner cannot be shirk his
shoulders from the responsibility.
It is submitted as instructed by
the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance)
necessary preventive measures has been
ordered to kept in abeyance all the
payment due to the petitioner and 6th
respondent and not to award any other
civil works to them until further
orders. Since the petitioner and the 6th
respondent are PWD contractors, they are
bound to keep honest with the
government. The action of making of
fabricated documents and representing
before the Government authority and
acquiring public money without utilizing
for the public interest, the motive of
the petitioner and Power of Attorney is
only making loss to the public
W.P.(C).5560 of 2008
:: 3 ::
exchequer. Only preventive action has
been taken to safeguard the interest of
the public and final action has not been
taken so far. The petitioner filed a
representation dtd. 15.12.07 this
petition is under consideration as the
enquiry is proceeding on the subject
matter.
Since the direction issued in
Ext.P10 is only a preventive measure so
as to safeguard the public exchequer and
hence proper, legal, rational and
according to natural justice. It is not
at all an order of punishment. Ext.P10
order is only a conditional order which
is subject to withdraw at the end of the
enquiry of the issue and hence there is
no need of affording the petitioner an
opportunity of being heard. Further
agreement for the work is in the nature
of the petitioner,he is legally bound to
answer all the questions arises thereon.
It is humbly prayed that the writ
petition may dismissed with cost.”
3. In the circumstances, since an enquiry
is being conducted into the allegations regarding
fabrication of the documents, it is only
appropriate that such enquiry is completed at the
earliest.
In the result, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to ensure
that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner
W.P.(C).5560 of 2008
:: 4 ::
referred to above, is completed at the earliest,
at any rate, within four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. After the
enquiry, if it is found that the allegations have
not been proved, obviously, the order black
listing the petitioner will not survive. It is
open to the petitioner to seek payment of the
amounts stated to be due to the petitioner for the
work already completed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE.
sk/-
//true copy//