Inspection conducted without the appellant's presence violated natural justice principles, necessitating reconsideration of the inspection findings and procedures.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a partnership firm, and is a registered A-class contractor with the Public Works Department. The petitioner was awarded with a work namely, ‘Strengthening of carriage way from Km. 64/000 to Km. 87/000 of NH 966 (Old NH 213) in the State of Kerala under Annual Plan 2017-18’. Ext.P1 is the tender, based on which, the petitioner was awarded with the work and Ext.P2 is the letter of acceptance dated 21.01.2013. The petitioner had completed the construction on 29.02.2020 as per the terms of contract. The defect liability period was for a period of three years, i.e., upto 20.02.2023. Ext.P4 is the work completion certificate dated 20.05.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that, based on a complaint submitted by a third party, an inquiry was commenced in the matter of construction carried out by the petitioner and as part of the same, an inspection was conducted on 31.10.2023, which was after the defect liability period. As per the same, samples were collected from four places out of the total extent of 23 kilometers of the road.

2. Based on the samples so collected and examination of the same, the inquiry was proceeded and it ultimately resulted in Ext.P14 report submitted by the Additional Secretary to Government of Kerala, where, certain recommendations were made. In the said report, it was found that, the work carried out by the petitioner was not satisfactory and on account of the same, an amount of Rs.7,19,42,216/- was determined as the loss to the Government. It was also recommended that the said amount has to be recovered from the Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, two Assistant Engineers and First Grade Draftsman by initiating disciplinary proceedings. As against the petitioner, the recommendation was that, the proceedings are to be initiated for blacklisting. The Performance Guarantee and Additional Performance Guarantee furnished by the petitioner was also directed to be invoked.

3. According to the petitioner, even before the inspection conducted on 31.10.2023, another inspection was conducted on 22.1.2022, wherein, certain discrepancies were found in the work of the petitioner. In the said inspection, samples were collected from six places and the liability fixed was Rs.1,29,867/-. The petitioner had already deposited the said amount. It was in those circumstances, this writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P14.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was submitted by the 3rd and the 4th respondents, disputing the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought. The details of the various proceedings initiated before issuing Ext.P14, were highlighted and the documents to support the same were also produced along with the said counter affidavit i.e., Exts.R3(a) to R3(g). A reply affidavit was also submitted by the petitioner to the counter affidavit, in response to the averments contained therein.

5. I have heard Sri Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel petitioner and Sri P.K.Babu, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P14 cannot be acted upon as against the petitioner, since the same was issued based on an inspection conducted after the defect liability period of the petitioner and also without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be present at the time of inspection. Apart from the above, a contention was specifically raised, relying upon the stipulations raised in Ext.P20 guidelines of MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) wherein, the manner in which the quality