M MANOJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the appointment of the third respondent as a consultant for the execution of Water Project illegal or tainted by malafieds? This is the short question that arises in this case. First, the facts.

(2.) On 25/02/1997, the Government of India and the Overseas Economic Co-operation Fund executed an agreement. The Fund agreed to lend to the Government of India an amount of Eleven Billon Nine hundred Ninety Seven Million Japanese Yen for the implementation of kerala water Project The parties had agreed that the borrower shall authorize kerala Water Authority to implement the project. Still further, the borrower was required to cause the executing agency to employ consultants for the implementation of the project.

(3.) Despite the lapse of more than six years, the appointment of the Consultant continues to be a bone of contention. Firstly, the selection was challenged through a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution viz. O.P.No.17793 of 1999. The petition was dismissed. Writ Appeal No. 2595 of 1999 was filed. It had also met with the same fate. It was dismissed vide order dated 18/12/1999. Finally, the SLP (Civil) No.91 of 2000 was dismissed on 17/01/2000.