R.K.RAMESH Vs. THE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:- "a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P7, P12 and P13 and quash the original of the same. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction directing the Director of Department of tourism to empanel the petitioner in Ext.P13 forthwith."

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was the architectural consultant in respect of a Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme, had been awarded a work of the Development of the Muzhappilangad Beach by Exhibits P4 and P8. It is stated that on the ground that there was a vigilance enquiry with regard to the conduct of the work, Exhibit P6 order was issued directing that the petitioner shall be removed from the list of empanelled architects of the Tourism Department and the amount paid to him under Exhibit P4 was to the recovered. It is stated that based on the same, Exhibit P7 proceedings were issued without any notice being issued to the petitioner and directing that the architectural fee of Rs.11,02,140/- paid to the petitioner shall be recovered and he may be removed from the empanelled list of architects maintained by the department. It is stated that the petitioner had preferred Exhibit P8 representation, but the same was not considered and the petitioner has approached this Court. By Exhibit P11 judgment dated 17.5.2016 there was a direction to the Government to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner and to pass orders on the same after hearing the petitioner as well. The implementation of Exhibit P7 order was kept in abeyance till orders are passed as directed. It is stated that the petitioner was put on notice in Exhibit P12 order dated 22.2.2017 which was passed by the Government. It is stated that the petitioner had executed agreement for architectural consultancy and was expected to visit the site and give consultancy with regard to the proper execution of the project. It is stated that the project was ill conceived and the work failed due to the failure of the structural design also. It is stated that as per the terms of the agreement the petitioner is expected to provide consultancy with regard to the structural design, viability of the constructions on the site and to exercise all reasonable skill, care and diligence for the proper conduct of the project. It is stated that since it is clear from the Quick Verification conducted by the Vigilance Department that such due care and caution had not been exercised, the petitioner cannot be absolved from the responsibility for the failure of the project. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by Exhibit P13 the petitioner's empanellment in the list of architects of the Tourism Department has also been cancelled.