Allowed

K.M.Michael v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2019WP(C)/849/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the blacklisting order due to lack of notice to the petitioner and being arbitrary. It directed the authority to reconsider the issue after providing a hearing notice within two months, relying on Article 226 powers.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 quashed; direction to 2nd respondent to reconsider the issue after providing a hearing notice to the petitioner at the earliest, or within two months.

K.M.Michael Vs Government of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.849 OF 2019(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.M.MICHAEL AGED 58 YEARS S/O.MICHAEL, KUMBUKATTU HOUSE, MUNDIYERUMA, KALLAR.P.O., KATTAPPANA-VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,

¶8

PIN-685552.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.P.T.ABHILASH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., KISSAN JYOTHI, FORT.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

3 ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

¶14

THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., KISSAN JYOTHI, FORT.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶15

4 DIRECTOR,

¶16

VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶17

BY ADV.

¶18

SMT.RASHMI.K.M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.849 OF 2019

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

¶24

following reliefs:

¶25

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the operation and all further proceedings in pursuance to Exts.P5 and P6;

¶26

ii) issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case

¶27

The basic contention advanced by the petitioner is that without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Ext.P6 is issued by the 2^nd respondent i.e, The Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, blacklisting the petitioner for a period of two years. It is also pointed out that, Ext.P6 order is passed on the basis of the directions issued by the State Government. A detailed statement is filed by the 4^th respondent justifying the action on the basis of Exts.P5 and P6. However, I find that there was no notice issued to the petitioner before the blacklisting was done which is a mandatory requirement under law if not done violates principles of natural justice.

¶28

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion

¶29

WP(C).No.849 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

that, Ext.P6 order is arbitrary and illegal susceptible to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Yet another reason I find is, Ext.P6 order is passed by the 2^nd respondent on the basis of the directions issued by the State Government.

¶32

In my considered opinion, when the authority is vested with powers to take into account various aspects and take a decision, the action initiated on the basis of the directions issued by the State Government cannot be sustained under law. Though notice is served on the 2^nd respondent, there is no appearance also.

¶33

In that view of the matter, this writ petition will stand allowed, Ext.P6 is quashed, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to re-consider the issue after providing notice of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

KAS

WP(C).No.849 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 23.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23.9.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23.9.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 10.10.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

PA TO JUDGE

K.M.Michael v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Michael v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Alphonsa Transport, Vs Chief Transport Manager(Retail)South

Vadakkan Roadways, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Julie Jaya Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

T.H.Musthaffa Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

P.Shanavas, Vs Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

Roopam Constructions, Vs the Chief Engineer