Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
MANOJ A – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD ROADS NORTH CIRCLE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42775 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
For the Respondents: SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, SR.G.P
Procedural fairness must be maintained in administrative actions, requiring opportunity for parties to be heard.
Headnote:The petitioner's agreement with the 1st respondent regarding civil works was examined. The court noted the absence of fair hearing prior to the issuance of Ext.P9 and highlighted the violation of natural justice. The finalization of Ext.P9 was ordered to be conducted post notification to the petitioner, ensuring an opportunity to respond. The petitioner was to receive details and submit objections within set timelines. The court has outlined procedural requirements for further decisions on the matter.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's engagement in civil works and completion certificate. (Para 1) |
| 2. violation of natural justice concerning communication. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a contractor, had entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent, in respect of providing BC overlay to Palakkad-Pollachi Road Kilometer 5/002, 17/000 and Para Angadi Road Kilometer 0/000, 20/000 general civil work. Exhibit P1 is the agreement executed in this regard. According to the petitioner, the work was already completed on 04.07.2023 as evidenced by the Ext.P5 certificate of completion. The defect liability period was up to 03.07.2025. On 02.07.2025 the 1st respondent issued a communication to the petitioner, pointing out that during the defect liability period certain damages have occurred to the road, and in respect of the same, a revised estimate for Rs.3517445/- was prepared by the authorities concerned as the cause for repairing the same. Thus the petitioner was required to carry out the works, and it was also stated that in case the work is not carried out by the petitioner, the said amount would be deducted from the security deposit furnished by the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances.
2. One of the specific contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P9 was issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. Even though the learned Government Pleader pointed out that before the issuance of Ext.P9, Ext.P6 notice was issued to the petitioner, touching upon the very same matter, it is discernible from Ext.P9 that, no such communications are referred to therein. Besides, no hearing of the petitioner was also conducted before the issuance of Ext.P9. In such circumstances I am of the view that the proceedings proposed as per Ext.P9, are in violation of proposed natural justice.
In such circumstances, it is ordered that the finalization of Ext.P9 can only be done by the 1st respondent after furnishing to the petitioner, the details of the works to be carried out and the manner in which the amount of Rs.35,17,445/- is calculated. Such a notice containing the details shall be submitted to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and thereupon, the petitioner shall submit an objection to the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the same. Thereafter, 1st respondent shall take a final decision on the same after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard.
Sd/-
