ALEXANDER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a contractor. The petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 20357 of 2010 raising grievance that in spite of recommendation to release bills due to him and same had not been released to him due to the inaction of the 4th respondent. The learned single Judge as per judgment (Ext. P17) dated 03.09.2010 directed the 4th respondent to take appropriate action based on the recommendation for release of the bill amount. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued Ext. P18 dated 12.10.2010 stating that termination of the work is without consulting him and an Vigilance Enquiry is pending in the matter and in view of the pendency of the Vigilance Enquiry, the bills submitted by the petitioner cannot be processed. Challenging Ext. P18, this writ petition is filed and also for consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner has undertaken two works under MPLAD Scheme for Tsunami rehabilitation. Both works were terminated without completing the same due to reasons, according to the petitioner not attributable to him. It is evident from Ext. P1 issued by 2nd respondent that the work was terminated without risk and costs. This work was in respect of constructing old age home at Alappadu. Similarly work undertaken by the petitioner in respect of Community Health Centre in Alappadu Grama Panchayath also has been terminated without risk and costs as evident from Ext. P6.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.