SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
PRAKASHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43770 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.SUJIN
For the Respondents: NAVEEN T.

The court affirmed the right to a hearing before adverse decisions on employment-related notifications and ordered timely action on representations.

Headnote:The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Ext.P1 notification, and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation. The petitioners, lorry drivers for the Beverages Corporation, expressed grievances regarding the tender notification issued for transporting goods. The Court ordered the respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation while allowing the tender process to continue. The decision on Ext.P2 was mandated within two weeks.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash Ext P1 notification;

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P2 representation and issue orders safeguarding the interest of the petitioners.

iii. Dispense with the translation of vernacular documents;

iv. To grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

The petitioners are lorry drivers transporting goods from Beverages Corporation Warehouse in Chalakkudy to other beverage outlets. The petitioners’ grievance is against the issuance of Ext.P1 tender notification inviting bids for sale and delivery of the goods of the Beverages Corporation to various warehouses. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have been engaged as drivers for the past several years and in such circumstances, highlighting their grievances, the 1st petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent. The limited relief sought by the petitioners is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 within a time frame.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the leaned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition. Accordingly, it is ordered that, the 2nd respondent shall take up Ext.P2 and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed after giving the petitioners an opportunity for being heard. As far as Ext.P1 tender notification is concerned, in view of the fact that the process is already commenced and the technical evaluation is scheduled to be conducted today (20.11.2025), I am of the view that, the proceedings can go on based on Ext.P1. The decision shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top