LAWS(KER)-2023-7-3

ABCON ENGINEERING Vs. SUPERINTEND OF ENGINEER

Decided On July 04, 2023
Abcon Engineering Appellant
V/S
Superintend Of Engineer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P12 order whereby the petitioner firm was blacklisted and the licence granted to the firm has been cancelled.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) Petitioner submits that none of the parameters in Clauses 1916 and 1917 of the Kerala PWD Manual for removing a contractor from the approved list and also for blacklisting is available in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the petitioner has perfectly carried out the work to the satisfaction of the PWD and the same was ultimately approved as per Exts.P2 to P4 and later when the defect liability period was over, the security deposit as well as the bank guarantee was released to the petitioner. Petitioner relying on Ext.P10 reply would submit that no documents or reasons have been assigned for issuance of Ext.P9 show cause notice and it is the specific contention of the petitioner that none of the contents of Ext.P8 were made known to the petitioner before issuance of Ext.P12 order. Therefore, it is contended that without making the petitioner know about the reasons for the issuance of Ext.P9 order, he could not give an effective reply to Ext.P9 show cause notice inasmuch as it does not contain any reason for taking action against the petitioner except the directions issued by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, 7th respondent herein. Petitioner further submits that the devastating flood calamities which occurred in Kerala in 2018 and 2019 might have caused some tropical effects underneath the soil and surrounding areas where improvement of surface removal work was executed. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioner relies on Ext.R1(a) document produced by the Government along with their counter affidavit wherein it is specifically stated that due to the floods a portion of the road has been damaged and the petitioner was directed to cure the said defect since the same was within the defect liability period.