Allowed

Ashraf T. Muhammed v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Kerala HC28 Jan 2021WP(C)/1250/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a communication blacklisting the petitioner and ordering recovery of losses, holding that the authority must issue a show cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing before taking such decisions.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 letter blacklisting the petitioner and deciding recovery is set aside; respondents must issue a show cause notice.

Ashraf T. Muhammed Vs Greater Cochin… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1250 OF 2021(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASHRAF T. MUHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, THACHARUKUDY HOUSE, CHERUVELIKUNNU, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.E.SAJAL SRI.S.KABEER

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAIN OFFICE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶11

2 SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAIN OFFICE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶12

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAIN OFFICE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶13

4 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAIN OFFICE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶14

5 ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAIN OFFICE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN.P.VARGHESE, SC, GCDA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.1250 OF 2021(E)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is a contractor, who

¶21

was awarded the electrical works under the G.C.D.A as per Ext.P1 work order dated 24.10.2017.

¶22

2. Petitioner claims that the work was completed on 17.04.2018 and the Defect Liability Period was for a period of three years. It is stated that even though certain defects were pointed out to petitioner, all

¶23

those defects were rectified and thereafter without any further notice, the respondents have issued Ext.P8 letter informing the petitioner that he is already black listed

¶24

and the loss caused to the G.C.D.A has been quantified as Rs.2,64,547/-, which the petitioner has to remit threatening the Revenue Recovery proceedings against the

¶25

WP(C).No.1250 OF 2021(E)

¶26

¶27

petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that after Ext.P5 letter dated 23.07.2019 of the Superintending Engineer directing him to rectify the defects and the defects were rectified, petitioner was not given any notice based on which Ext.P8 has been passed.

¶28

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the G.C.D.A.

¶29

4. A reading of Ext.P8 would show that it only refers to two letters of 18.06.2019 and 23.07.2019. But Ext.P8 says that G.C.D.A has already black listed the petitioner and decided to recover the loss caused to the G.C.D.A. Such a decision cannot be taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶30

WP(C).No.1250 OF 2021(E)

¶31

¶32

Therefore Ext.P8 is set aside. The

¶33

respondents shall take a decision after issuing a show cause notice. On receipt of such show cause notice, petitioner shall submit his representation. The G.C.D.A would be free to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/-

¶35

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.1250 OF 2021(E)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT T 24.10.2017.	WORK ORDER ISSUED BY THE O THE PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 4TH RESPONDENT 18.06.2019.	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY TO THE PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIV	PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ITIES OVER THE CABLE AS
	PART OF THE CO DRAINAGE.	NSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2019.	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 4TH RESPONDENT 23.07.2019.	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY TO THE PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.08.2019.	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, GCDA
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER GCDA DATED 24.03 COPY.	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECRETARY, .2020 ALONG WITH TYPED
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE THE SECRETARY, GCD PETITIONER.	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY A DATED 01.01.2021 TO THE

Ashraf T. Muhammed v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf T. Muhammed v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parthas Taxtiles Vs the South India Bank Ltd.

Hotel Abaam Chelsea Vs the Hotel and Restaurants Approval and Classification Committee (Hracc)

Jabir Usman C.K Vs State of Kerala

S.R.Venugoapal Prabhu Vs the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporatin (Kinfra)

Ahamad A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Kadheeja T.T. Vs the Commissioner of Civil Supplies