IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 582 of 2008()
1. GEORGE JOSEPH, THURUTHIKIZHAKKEL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VATHYKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :11/03/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.582 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
Being aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Vathykkudy
Grama Panchayat, Idukki District (‘Grama Panchayat’ for short), the petitioner
was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1388 of 2008.
2. The learned Single Judge accepted the version of the petitioner, but
however, declined to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. That is how
the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
respondent Grama Panchayat without blacklisting the appellant after issuing
an appropriate show cause notice, could not have rejected the tender forms
submitted by the appellant. Therefore, submits that the action of the
respondent Grama Panchayat in passing Exts.P6 and P7 orders is not only
arbitrary but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat would inform
us that the appellant had defaulted on two or three previous occasions and
therefore, the respondent is justified in rejecting the tender forms submitted by
the appellant.
5. The only issue that crops up for our consideration and decision in
this writ appeal is whether the respondent was justified in issuing Exts.P6 and
P7 orders, in so far as it relates to the appellant.
6. Obviously, our answer is no. If for any reason, the respondent
Grama Panchayat wanted to blacklist the appellant, they should have issued
W.A.No.582 of 2008
2
appropriate show cause notice to the appellant and after hearing him should
have passed an appropriate order. It is only thereafter that they could have
issued Exts.P6 and P7 orders. Since that has not been done, in our opinion,
Exts.P6 and P7, in so far as it relates to the appellant, require to be set aside
and a direction requires to be issued to the respondent Grama Panchayat to
consider the tender forms submitted by the appellant in accordance with law
and in accordance with the terms and conditions imposed in the tender forms
itself. Liberty is also reserved to the Grama Panchayat to initiate appropriate
proceedings, if they so desire, to blacklist the appellant in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
vns