IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32751 of 2006(Y)
1. M/S. HI TECH CONTRUCTION COMPANY, A FIRM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CALICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
3. THE CORPORATION OF CALICUT,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :08/01/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 32751 OF 2006
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Mohammed Nias, counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, Standing Counsel for the Corporation,
Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, Standing Counsel for the Calicut Development
Authority and also Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Government
Pleader.
2. My attention was drawn by Sri.Nias to paragraph 9 of the
counter affidavit which is extracted hereunder:
“9. Similarly, para 8 of the writ petition is also relating to Ext.P13
order of the Government. Following the Govt. direction, a meeting
of the representatives of 2nd and 3rd respondent was convened
and in the meeting it was resolved to assign the work to the
petitioner themselves after directing them to recast the estimate,
taking into consideration of the fact that no revision had been
made to the schedule of rate published by the PWD. While action
was being taken to place this proposal before the Council of the
Corporation, the petitioner filed this case and so the matter could
not be submitted to the Council.”
3. Nobody has objection in the Government being directed to take
fresh decision in the light of the resolution referred to in para 9 of the
counter affidavit extracted above.
Under these circumstances, I quash Exts.P12 and P13 and direct
WPC No. 32751 of 2006
2
the Corporation Secretary to place the decision taken in the meeting
referred to in para 9 of the counter affidavit before the Council and once
the Council approves that decision, the same will be forwarded to the
Government for approval. The Government will take fresh decision on
the issue in the light of the recommendations of the Corporation.
Needful will be done by the concerned respondent, at their earliest and
at any rate, within one month of receiving coy of this judgment. Before
taking a decision, the Government will hear the petitioner as well as the
Corporation.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No. 32751 of 2006
3
