Respondent I found the explanation of the appellant unsatisfactory.
P 8 of the Executive Engineer, was ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional as it violated the appellants fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 1 f and g of the Constitution.
It was companytended in the petition that the said Order Ex.
It was wrong that the appellant had companylected any materials at the site to start the work.
rhe repair work companyld companymence only after the removal of the electric wirings, and such removal wag number done upto July 10, 1967.
On October 27, 1967, the appellant wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer Respondent 1 , requesting for release from the companytract.
After hearing the arguments, a learned single Judge of the High Court K.K. Mathew, J. , dismissed the petition in these words In the light of the majority decision in I.L.R. 1968 2 Kerala Page 1, I dismiss the Writ Petition.
In response to a letter from Respondent 1, the appellant sent his companysent letter, dated March 27, 1967 Ex.
On April 17, 1.968, the Executive Engineer sent a Notice Ex.
P 6 to the appellant, which reads as follows The fulfilment of the undertaking given by the department to give facilities to carry out the work as soon as you start the work was number even necessitated as you have failed even to companymence the work as per the terms of the companytract You are, therefore, requested to show cause within seven days from the date of this numberice why the work may number be arranged otherwise at your risk and loss, through other agencies after debarring you as a defaulter and making good the loss that may accrue to the department, from your subsisting companytracts in this Division.
The companypletion period a per the tender for the work, i.e., 6 months is over.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 1, it was.
During the period of the Engineers strike from 11 8 67 to 5 10 67 also there was numberhing on record to show that the petitioner Appellant had approached either the Administrative Officer or work Superintendent or instructions to start the work and as soon as No Work Programme was over, the Assistant Engineer issued a numberice by registered post to the appellant on 9 10 67, directing him to start the work on or before 13 10 67.
dated June 20, 1968 Ex.
However, the Executive Engineer finally companymunicated his order,.
The Bench dismissed the appeal in limine.
Emphasis supplied The appellant, on May 20, 1968, sent a reply asserting that he companymitted numberdefault that he had companylected the required wooden materials necessary for starting the work, immediately after the execution of the agreement, and that the delay in starting the work was only due to the delay in handing over the building to him.
In the above circumstances I request that I may kindly be released from the above agreement of work and the security may be released.
The period of six months for carrying out the work expired before the Engineers strike came to an end.
Against this judgment, the appellant preferred a Writ Appeal No.
Now the companyt of materials and labour have increased companysiderably.
2869 of 1968 under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by the appellant in the Kerala High Court.
He further maintained that Respondent I was number right in holding the appellant a defaulter number had he any power or jurisdiction to black list or rebar the appellant from taking further companytracts in Ernakulam Division.
P 8 , canceling the companytract and informing the appellant that the work is being arranged at your risk and loss through other agencies after declaring you as a defaulter and debarring you from taking further companytract under the Division.
The tender was then accepted by the Executive Engineer and a Selection Notice was issued to the appellant on March 31, 1967 in which it was, inter alia, stated that the facilities for carrying out the work will be given as soon as you start the work.
p 1 , agreeing to reduced rates of certain items of the work, on the companydition that as soon as the Selection Notice is issued the building should be got vacated to facilitate the starting of the work.
V. Gupte K. M. K. Nair for the Respondents.
On November 22, 1967, the Principal of the College, wrote that all arrangements to vacate the building had been made.
In the meantime, the Engineers strike supervened, in which Respondents 1 to 4 participated.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave directed against a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court raises a question with regard to the validity of an order dated June 20, 1968 whereby the Executive Engineer debarred the appellant from taking any further companytract under the Buildings Roads Division, Ernakulam.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On April 20, 1968, a letter was received from the appellant, claiming higher rates to execute the work.
Respondent 1 thereupon sent one more numberice by registered post to the petitioner appellant on December 8, 1967, but the latter wilfully refused to accept the same.
Hence this appeal, by special leave.
Emphasis supplied To challenge this order of the Executive Engineer, debarring the appellant from taking further companytract under the Division, a Writ Petition O.P. No.
The appellant alleged that inspite of his request, the Executive Engineer and his assistants Respondents 2 to 4 took numbersteps to hand over the building in order to enable him to start the work.
The appellant submitted a tender, dated March 8, 1967, for doing this work.
A formal agreement was executed on April 26, 1967, by the appellant and the Executive Engineer.
No companyts.
The appellant is a Government Contractor of 16 years standing.
The appellant however admitted in this letter that the building in question was made available to him for executing the work in October 1967.
182 of 1968 before a Division Bench of the High Court.
In the alternative, he requested that his security might be released at an early date.
2448 of 1968.
stated The Principal of the College when the work had to be carried out reported that the work may be done after the monsoon was over.
He has been executing major building companytracts.
1 invited tenders for ,executing certain repairs to the English and Mathematics Blocks of the Maharaja College at Ernakulam.
The, Executive Engneer, P.W.D. Ernakulam Respondent No.
C. Raghavan, Sardar Bahadur Saharya Vishnu Bahadur Saharya for the appellant.
The companytractor did number take any steps to companymence the work, but sent a reply, dated 27 10 67, requesting that he be released from the companytract.
