Disposed

Anand Vinayak v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2022WP(C)/4206/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court set aside an order cancelling a Contractor's Licence due to violation of natural justice, directing the authority to treat prior communications as show-cause notices, permit a reply, and pass appropriate orders. The licence cancellation decision is deferred until the authority considers the petitioner's reply.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 treated as show cause notices; petitioner given one month to reply; decision to cancel licence deferred until fresh order passed.

Anand Vinayak Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 21ST MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4206 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANAND VINAYAK, AGED 35 YEARS, KAILAS, KESAVAN NAGAR 22, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶8

BY ADVS. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.4206/2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2022

¶19

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order dated 25.10.2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent by which the Contractor's Licence issued to the petitioner stands cancelled.

¶20

The petitioner states that he executed two works of the Public Works Department as per agreements dated 12.06.2018 and 06.08.2018. Both works were satisfactorily completed by the petitioner. The bill amounts were also paid. No allegations were raised against the works of the petitioner.

¶21

After four years, Ext.P4 notice was given to the petitioner directing to appear before the 2^nd respondentSuperintending Engineer for hearing. The petitioner was not informed of the nature of the allegations in Ext.P4. However,

¶22

W.P.(C)No.4206/2022

¶23

¶24

the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply. In Ext.P5, the petitioner stated that the notice issued to him does not stand to reasons.

¶25

The petitioner states that without considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondentSuperintending Engineer passed Ext.P6 order dated 25.10.2021, cancelling the Contract Licence issued in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect, for the alleged placing of fabricated stamp paper, with material alteration of dates for executing agreement with the Department by using such fabricated stamp papers.

¶26

The learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext.P4 apart from stating that an Inspection Squad has found that the petitioner is guilty, the facts leading to such findings were not divulged to the petitioner. In Ext.P5 reply, the petitioner had stated that he is not guilty of any offence. Without informing the petitioner all the facts leading to the finding by the Inspecting Squad, the Superintending Engineer has passed Ext.P6 order, by not

¶27

W.P.(C)No.4206/2022

¶28

¶29

giving the petitioner the basic facts which he is expected to answer. This is gross violation of the principles of audi alteram partem . Ext.P6 is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted that though the work is completed by the petitioner, the Kollam District Finance Squad conducted an inspection and found that the petitioner has manipulated Stamp papers to make undue gains. The conduct of the petitioner stands proved by the inspection report and by the documents available. As the petitioner is found to be involved in manipulating records, it will not be in public interest to sustain the Contractor's Licence of the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P6 order passed by the 2^nd respondent is absolutely justified.

¶31

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that further enquiry in the matter has revealed that the manipulations are done by certain officers of the Government also.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.4206/2022

¶33

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

From Ext.P4, it is evident that the facts leading to

¶36

the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty, were not disclosed therein. Ext.P6 proceedings would show that an office letter dated 12.08.2021 was issued to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner made available the copy of the said communication. This Court finds that even in the said communication, the allegations against the petitioner were not disclosed to the petitioner in advance. In short, the petitioner was required to answer charges which were not disclosed to him. In that view of the matter, Ext.P6 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

¶37

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it would be sufficient to direct the 2^nd respondent to treat Ext.P6 as a show cause notice disclosing the allegations against the petitioner, permit the petitioner to

¶38

give a detailed reply to Ext.P6, including supporting

¶39

W.P.(C)No.4206/2022

¶40

¶41

documents and direct the 2^nd respondent to take a final decision afresh based on the reply submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to treat Exts.P4 and P6 as show cause notices issued to the petitioner. The petitioner may submit his reply to the said show cause notices, within a period of one month. After considering the reply so submitted by the petitioner and any other documents furnished by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such orders are passed, the decision to cancel the licence of the petitioner would stand

¶42

deferred.

¶43

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)No.4206/2022

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4206/2022

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

Exhibit-P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER N 1328/2017 DATED 26-05-2018 GIVEN 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER	O. D4- BY THE
Exhibit-P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFO ACT FROM THE DISTRICT TREASURY, DATED 11-01-2022	BY THE RMATION KOLLAM
Exhibit-P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES MEASUREMENT BOOK NO. 14	OF THE 9/16-17
	MAINTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF T RESPONDENT	HE 3RD
Exhibit-P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONE 22-07-2021	BY THE R DATED
Exhibit-P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TIME OF HEARING ON 11-08-2021	BY THE AT THE
Exhibit-P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER N 1/VIG/1259/2021 DATED 25-10-2021 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT	O. SE ISSUED
Exhibit-P7 SR	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE REGISTER MAINTAINED AT THE OFF THE 3RD RESPONDENT //TRUE COPY// PA TO J	OF THE ICE OF UDGE

Anand Vinayak v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Vinayak v. State 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

Purathur Maveli Store Samrashana Samathi Purathur Represented by Its Convener Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Principal Secretary

Joseph M.C Vs Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited

Alias K Kuriakose, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Suresh Kumar G.S Vs State of Kerala

Benny Mathew Vs Executive Engineer

Hariharan K. R. Vs Union of India