M.T.Abdul Nazar vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 13 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4876 of 2009(E)


1. M.T.ABDUL NAZAR, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

3. THE  CHIEF ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :13/02/2009

 O R D E R
                   ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
               -----------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.4876 OF 2009
              ------------------------
          Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009.

                        JUDGMENT

Petitioner was awarded a contract as per Ext.P1 and

that was terminated by Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent.

He filed an appeal. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P7 order

again issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7 order was

challenged before this court in WP(c).No.1365/09. Finding

that the authority who has terminated the contract, himself

has rejected the appeal by Ext.P7 order, this court

disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 19th

January, 2009 quashing Ext.P7 and directing that the

matter shall be reconsidered by the first respondent. The

petitioner submits that the appeal is still pending and in the

meanwhile by Ext.P10, the work has been retendered. It is

with that grievance the writ petition is filed.

Wp(c).No.4876/09 /2/

2. On behalf of the respondents the standing counsel

points out that in pursuance to the judgment of this court

referred above the petitioner has been heard by the first

respondent on 9.2.2009 and orders are being issued.

3. Thus it is obvious that the appeal filed by the

petitioner against Ext.P2 is still not disposed of and it is in the

meanwhile the work has been retendered. Taking into account

the fact that the appeal has not been disposed of till now, the

writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

The appeal against Ext.P2 in which the petitioner has

already been heard shall be disposed of as expeditiously as

possible by the first respondent. It is directed that until

disposal of the appeal though the respondent can proceed

with Ext.P10, the tender shall not be fialised.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

                                        (ANTONY DOMINIC)
                                             JUDGE
vi/

Wp(c).No.4876/09    /2/