M.C.Baby vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9590 Ker

Kerala High Court

M.C.Baby vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2025

W.P.(C).No.28668 of 2022          1

                                                 2025:KER:75559

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

   FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 28668 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

            M.C.BABY
            AGED 58 YEARS
            CONTRACTOR, S/O. CHACKO, MATTATHIL HOUSE,
            MONAPPILLY, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682
            308.


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
            SRI.P.PRIJITH
            SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
            SRI.R.GITHESH
            SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
            SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
            SHRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
            SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
            SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
            SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)


RESPONDENTS:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
            DEPARTMENT, ROADS AND BRIDGES, SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

     2      THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
            (ROADS DIVISION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

     3      THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
            P.W.D. CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101.

     4      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
            P.W.D ROAD DIVISION, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI, PIN -
 W.P.(C).No.28668 of 2022             2

                                                        2025:KER:75559

             682 021.

     5       THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
             P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN -
             682021.

     6       THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
             P.W.D. ROAD SECTION, THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301.


             BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


OTHER PRESENT:

             SPL GP - MANOJ


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.10.2025,     THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.28668 of 2022            3

                                                    2025:KER:75559

                     VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
                   --------------------
                W.P.(C).No.28668 of 2022
             --------------------------------
         Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025

                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to

quash Exts.P5 to P7 orders passed by the 3 rd

respondent imposing a fine on the extension of time

for the said work. Petitioner has also sought a

direction to quash Ext.P29 order passed by the 3rd

respondent, cancelling the A Class Contract License

of the petitioner and black listing him.

2. The petitioner is an 'A' Class Government

Contractor. A tender submitted by the petitioner for

the work Budget work 2016-2017 improvements to

town road and reconstruction of damaged drain and

foot path of stable road CH0/0000/30 Kannankulangara

road CH0/000-0/300 Sanskrit College Road, CH/0/200 to

0/300, BHS road CH0/200-0/400 Chakkankulangara Road

CH0/200-0/300 was accepted and Ext.P1 agreement was

executed. Though the period for completion of the

said work is fixed as 12 months from the date of

2025:KER:75559

handing over the site, the work was completed on

15.06.2020 within the extended time granted by the

authorities. Petitioner would submit that extension

was granted as per Exts.P4 to P7, while granting

extension as per Exts.P5 to P7, a fine was imposed

without any reason. Based on a complaint preferred by

the Member of the Legislative Assembly regarding

certain allegations regarding the work undertaking

against the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted

through the Vigilance Wing of the PWD and Ext.P10

report dated 19.11.2019 was submitted. Petitioner,

relying on Ext.P12, submits that the authorities

itself have found that the allegations against the

petitioner are not correct. Later, the petitioner

was issued Ext.P27 notice to show cause as to why

steps shall not be taken for cancelling his licence

invoking Clause 1916 of the PWD Manual 2012.

Petitioner submitted Ext.P28 reply to the same,

stating that in the show cause notice, none of the

defect or fault on the part of the petitioner leading

to issuance of Ext.P7 notice is given, and therefore,

he could not file a proper reply to Ext.P27. Now, by

2025:KER:75559

Ext.P29 order the license was cancelled, and he was

black listed. It is aggrieved by the same that the

petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on the

basis of the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd

respondent, submitted that the work undertaken by

the petitioner regarding the improvement of

Nadakkavu-Mulanthuruthy Road was cancelled at the

risk and cost of the contractor, and though the

petitioner has challenged the same, the Court has

repelled the said challenge. Further, relying on the

Vigilance Report of the Deputy Chief Engineer,

Vigilance, dated 30.01.2020, a decision was taken to

cancel the license and also black listed the

petitioner.

4. I have considered the rival contentions on

both sides.

5. As regards the imposition of a fine, as

per Exts.P5 to P7, it is seen that the petitioner

has accepted the extension order granted by imposing

a fine and completed the said work. Therefore, the

petitioner cannot now turn down and challenges the

2025:KER:75559

imposition of fine in the said proceedings. But as

regards the challenge against Ext.P29, it is to be

seen that Ext.P27 is the show cause notice issued to

the petitioner. It is seen that Ext.P27 notice was

also issued based on Ext.P22 report of the Deputy

Chief Engineer, Vigilance. But a perusal of Ext.P27

would reveal that the reason for taking a decision

to cancel his license is not stated in Ext.P21 and

further the copy of the Vigilance report relied on

to issue Ext.P27 notice is also not served on the

petitioner. In Ext.P28 reply given by the petitioner

he has taken a specific contention that since no

allegations on which the steps have been taken to

cancel his license has not been stated in Ext.P27

notice, he could not give an effective reply.

Thereafter, by Ext.P29, based on the reason that the

work for improvement of Nadakkavu-Mulanthuruthy Road

has been cancelled at the risk and cost of the

petitioner and also relying on the report of the

Deputy Chief Engineer, Vigilance, a decision was

taken to cancel his license and black listed him.

Petitioner relies on the judgment in M/S. Abcon

2025:KER:75559

Engineering v. Superintend of Engineer, PWD and

Others and contend that blacklisting has the effect

of preventing a person from the privilege and

advantage of gaining a lawful relationship with the

Government for the purposes of gains, and that a

disability is created by the order of blacklisting,

it is incumbent on the part of the Government to put

him on notice of the reason for the blacklisting

while issuing the order. Though the report of the

Deputy Chief Engineer, Vigilance, was relied on for

the issuance of Ext.P29, a copy of the said report

has also not been made available to the petitioner

and since no reasons have been stated in Ext.P27

show cause notice petitioner could not submit a

proper reply to Ext.P27 notice.

Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter

requires reconsideration. Accordingly, Ext.P29 order

is set aside, with a consequential direction to the

3rd respondent to issue a proper notice to the

petitioner pointing out the reasons for which they

are proposing to cancel the license and blacklist

2025:KER:75559

the petitioner and the petitioner shall be given

sufficient opportunity to file reply to the same and

after affording an opportunity of being heard, fresh

orders shall be passed by the 3rd respondent. The

relief sought as relief No. (c) is left open,

leaving open liberty to the petitioner to agitate

the same, after a decision is taken as directed

above.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE

pm

2025:KER:75559

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28668/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER REQUESTING TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 IS THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.61/SECCA/17-18 DATED 22.06.2017 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TIME EXTENSION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 29.06.2018 TILL 30.03.2019 WITHOUT IMPOSING FINE. EXHIBIT P5 IS THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS. 1,54,445.00/- DATED 05.06.2020 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6                 IS THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSING A
                           FINE    OF    RS.    2,02,223.00/-     DATED

05.06.2020 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 IS THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSING A FINE OF RS. 85,556/- DATED 05.06.2020 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE THEN MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, MR. SWARAJ TO THE THEN P.W.D. MINSTER DATED 12.07.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.09.2018 SEND BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT STATING THE UTILISATION OF SAVINGS OCCURRED IN THE BUDGET WORK.

EXHIBIT P10 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.11.2019 SEND BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 01.10.2021 SEND BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 IS THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.10.2021 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.