IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 984 of 2009(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------- VINOD M. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF M/S.VANUS INDUSTRIES, NO.4,DEVAYANI INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, GOWDANAPALYA, BANGALORE -61. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, JALANIDHI (KERALA RURAL WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION AGENCY) DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, 2ND FLOOR, LUCIYA TOWERS, CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. THE PROJECT MANAGER, DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, JALANIDHI,AYYANTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR. 4. THE SCHEME LEVEL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (SLEC) PEECHI POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SCHEME LEVEL COMMITTEE, PANANCHERY, PATTIKKAD P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. PANANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. ANAND WATER METER MANUFACURING COMPANY' ERNAKULAM KOCHI-11, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 984 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Tenders were invited for the supply of water meters. Seven bids were received, and according to the petitioner he was the lowest bidder and the 6th respondent was the second lowest bidder. It is stated that by Exhibit P11, the second respondent ordered to award the contract to the 6th respondent and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the said document shows that the petitioner did not satisfy the pre-qualification conditions. According to the petitioner, the documents which were stated to be absent in his bid were not necessary to be produced in terms of the tender conditions specified in the tender notice. This can be verified only if tender notice with the conditions specified is produced. This has not been produced and on 9/1/2009 and 19/01/2009, even though the case was adjourned for that purpose, the document is still not produced. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the documents which are absent were not W.P.(C) No. 984/2009 2 necessary to be produced cannot be ascertained on the materials. Hence the writ petition fails and is it dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm