The principle of fair hearing and proper assessment of misconduct allegations is essential in any decision regarding blacklisting a contractor.

ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, has filed this report pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 19.07.2022 in W.P.(C)No.19465 of 2022. The additional 6th respondent, who is stated to be an 'A' class contractor, carrying out various contract works in the Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed that writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a communication dated 05.06.2022 (Ext.P3) issued on behalf of the 4th respondent Executive Officer, Sabarimala, by the 5th respondent Assistant Executive Officer, and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein not to take any coercive action against him. W.P.(C)No.19465 of 2022 was disposed of by the judgment dated 19.07.2022. Paragraphs 26, 27 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“26. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out Ext.P4 notice dated 07.07.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent and also Ext.P5 receipt dated 11.07.2022, evidencing the payment of Rs.22,12,500/-, which was paid on 11.07.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said amount includes Rs.20,00,000/- towards the balance bid amount and a further sum of Rs.2,12,500/- towards delayed payment of the balance bid amount, which the petitioner was bound to remit, in terms of the tender conditions, by 24.01.2022.

27. In the judgment dated 08.06.2022, while dismissing W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022, this Court noticed that in view of the law laid down inSuneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091] 4th respondent Executive Officer ought to have reported the default committed by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to take stern action against him. Further, the competent authority in the Travancore Devaswom Board ought to have initiated proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of the bid, followed by recovery proceedings and also proceedings for blacklisting. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner for blacklisting was on account of the instances pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. It is a serious misconduct on the part of a Kuthaka holder at Sabarimala, especially when such an incident occurred during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season, when a large number of devotees had darshan at Sabarimala through Virtual-Q platform. The said incident was brought to the notice of this Court through the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take an appropriate decision in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for blacklisting, as evidenced by Ext.P3 communication dated 05.06.2022, after considering the explanation offered by him before the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra and the directions contained in the judgment dated 08.06.2022 in W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022. While taking such decision, the 2nd respondent Board shall keep in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court inM.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65]. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The decision taken by the Board, which shall be supported by reasons, shall be brought to the notice of this Court along with the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, within a further period of one week.”

2. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the report filed by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala read thus;

“4. It is submitted that Sunil Kumar was the successful bidder of the toilet block and cloak