IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 27973 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SALIKUMAR.C.K. CHATHAMALACHIRAYIL, PAKKIL POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.S.E.B, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER & PRINCIPAL TEAM LEADER , KSEB, CENTRAL CIRCLE PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & TREAM LEADER C.M.DIVISION, PALLOM, KSEB, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB C.M.DIVISION, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B, MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 27973/2008-E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/09/2008 ALONG WITH WORK AUTHORISATION DATED 18/08/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/09/2008 ALONG WITH STAMP PAPER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARDS SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/09/2008 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COVER ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER, DATED 09/08/1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CMDB1-12/2005-06/287, DATED 31/08/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CMDB1-12/2005-06/304, DATED 05/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DB7/2/95-96/417, DATED 08/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.R1(f): COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXT.R1(g): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CMSD-13/CROSS ARMS/08-09/201, DATED 08/09/2008. EXT.R1(h): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CMSD-13/CROSS ARMS/08-09/200, DATED 08/09/2008 ISSUED FROM THE BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V.GIRI ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.27973 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted a tender for the fabrication of 3000 numbers of 33 kv 'V' cross arm with clamp at production shop in the K.S.E.B., C.M.Division, Pallom. According to the petitioner, there were three tenders and the tender submitted by the petitioner was the lowest. The tender was opened on 18.8.2008. The petitioner did not know of the opening of the tender. But he was issued with Ext.P1 authorisation requiring him to execute an agreement on or before 6.9.2008. He further submits that he was served with the letter only on 8.9.2008. The petitioner sent a registered letter on 9.9.2008, Ext.P2, intimating respondents 2 to 4 about the non-receipt of the authorisation letter. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 acknowledgement card will show that Ext.P2 was served on respondents 2 to 4. But the 4th respondent proceeded to cancel the work awarded to the petitioner by Ext.P4 order, W.P.(C)No.27973 of 2008 :: 2 :: which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 3. It is to be noted that this court had only stayed Ext.P4 insofar it contemplated cancellation of the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board submits that re-tendered work has been completed. It is also submitted that the petitioner was present in the office premises, as the supervisor of another contract and he was requested personally to receive the authorisation. He refused to do so and therefore, Ext.P1 was sent. He evaded acceptance of the letter and ultimately it was accepted only on 8.9.2008. The cancellation of the work and the decision to re-tender are justified. Now, the re- tendered work has been completed. 4. What survives is only the question as to whether the Board would be in a position to realise the differential W.P.(C)No.27973 of 2008 :: 3 :: amount; i.e., difference between the amount which would have been payable to him, had he been awarded the construction work and the amount payable to the subsequent contractor. The question as to whether the petitioner was served with an authorisation letter and whether he had deliberately turned down the request may be considered by an official higher than the author of Ext.P2. The petitioner was not heard before Ext.P4 was passed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the Deputy Chief Engineer, the 2nd respondent, as though it is an appeal against Ext.P4. The 2nd respondent shall consider the petitioner's representation with regard to the imposition of risk and cost, in the light of the re-tender and shall take a decision untrammelled by Ext.P4. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the earnest money deposited by him shall be refunded. If any other amount is deposited by him, that shall also be refunded to him, depending upon the W.P.(C)No.27973 of 2008 :: 4 :: decision to be taken by the Deputy Chief Engineer. The Deputy Chief Engineer shall pass orders within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, along with the copy of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner, as directed above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//