STATE OF KERALA Vs. NAMSHAD A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned review petitions are filed against the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.7331/2019 dated 27.3.2019, 9872/2019 dated 8.4.2019 and the common judgment in W.P.(C)Nos.9900/2019 & 9901/2019 dated 9.4.2019 by the respondents in the said writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by contractors against the non-consideration of applications submitted by the petitioners for renewing the contract licence. It was an admitted fact that, the applications were submitted, three or four days belatedly than the time prescribed under the PWD manual/notification issued for renewing the contract licences. In accordance with the manual, application for renewal has to be submitted on or before the 1 st day of January of the year of expiry of the licence, however, with a fine of Rs.2,500/- the application can be submitted up to 31 st January of the year before expiry of the licence. After evaluating the situation, this Court has found that the cut off of date is fixed by the Government to regulate the consideration of the renewal applications sufficiently earlier to the expiry of licences and to avoid the stalemate in that regard. It was also found that the provisions of the PWD manual are not having any mandatory characteristics and there are no adverse remarks against the petitioners and therefore, there is nothing wrong in exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioners, after holding that the provisions of the manual are only regulatory and directory to ensure submission of applications on an early basis, in order to process the same, by making due enquiries. Now the contention advanced by the respondents is that as per Clause 1910 of PWD manual, an application in appendix 1900 G has to be submitted before 1st January, and with fine of Rs.2,500/- up to 31 st January, and 5 documents have to be annexed for the purpose along with the application form. But the writ petitioners have submitted the application in white paper and without any supporting documents. So also it is submitted that, the writ petitioners are entitled to submit fresh applications seeking licence, and unless and until the requirements of the PWD manual is followed by the licencees, the review petitioners would be put into serious difficulties in processing their applications.

(2.) I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

(3.) In my considered opinion, the sole aspect that was pointed out in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions was that, the applications submitted by the writ petitioners were belated. The rest of the contentions advanced in the review petition with respect to the submission of the application in white paper without supporting documents was not raised for consideration at all in the writ petition. Moreover, the issues raised by the petitioners with respect to the submission of renewal applications on time was seriously taken into account by this Court, and it was after evaluating the fact situations, findings were arrived that the provisions in the notification is only directory and regulatory in nature and therefore, the application submitted by the writ petitioners were entitled to be considered.