IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29538 of 2009(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYADEVAN NAIR, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, `KALYANI', SWATHI NAGAR, LANE NO.2, PEROORKADA P.O. BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OFFICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT. 3. C.I.WILSON, EASWARI TRADERS, MANTHALAM, ALAMCODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29538 of 2009 - J ---------------------------------------- Dated 11th November, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.M.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Though the third respondent has been served, he has not chosen to enter appearance. 2. By Ext.P1 tender notice, the Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut invited tenders for disposal of used answer books and other miscellaneous waste paper including unused question papers. The last date for submission of tenders was 31.8.2009. The tenders were opened on the very same day in the presence of all the tenderers. The petitioners as well as the third respondent submitted their tenders. When the tenders were opened, the offer made by the third respondent was found to be the highest. The said tender was accepted and a work order was also issued. The petitioner did not protest immediately. He thereafter caused Ext.P2 notice to be issued W.P.(C) No.29538/2009 2 to the Controller of Examinations through his lawyer on 2.9.2009 contending that the demand draft produced by the third respondent was not a demand draft drawn on the State Bank of Travancore. In Ext.P2 notice, the Controller of Examinations was called upon to cancel the award of the contract to the third respondent. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 19.10.2009 seeking the following reliefs: (i) To declare that awarding of contract to the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice is illegal and arbitrary; (ii) To call for the records leading to issuance of contract to the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice and to quash the award of contract;” 3. The petitioner contends relying on paragraph 4 (b) of the tender notice that as the demand draft submitted by the third respondent was not a demand draft issued by the State Bank of Travancore, but by Indian Bank, the tender submitted by the third respondent was liable to be rejected. 4. The Registrar of the University of Calicut was sworn to an affidavit dated 27.10.2009. It is stated that pursuant to the tender notice, 12 bids were received and that six of the bids were rejected since they did not satisfy the tender conditions. W.P.(C) No.29538/2009 3 The Registrar of the University of Calicut has also furnished the details of the tenders submitted by the six tenderers whose tenders were found to be valid tenders. As per the details furnished by the Registrar, the offer made by the third respondent was the highest. The petitioner's tender was the third highest. The third respondent had quoted Rs.22.78 per kilogram of used answer books and Rs.12.15 per kilogram for other miscellaneous waste paper. The petitioner had quoted Rs.14.46 per kilogram for both types of papers. It is also seen that Mr.S.Nazar had quoted Rs.19.21 for both types of papers. Going by the details furnished by the Registrar, it is evident that the petitioner's tender was not the second highest. Therefore, even if third respondent's tender was rejected, the tender could not have been awarded to the petitioner. Further, the Registrar of the University of Calicut has stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that the demand draft submitted by the third respondent towards earnest money deposit was a demand draft of Indian Bank drawn on State Bank of Travancore, University Campus Branch in favour of the Controller of Examinations. It is common practice for banks to issue demand drafts drawn on other banks with whom they W.P.(C) No.29538/2009 4 have an existing arrangement if the bank issuing the demand draft does not have a branch at the place where the draft has to be realised. The petitioner has not pleaded or proved that Indian Bank has a branch in the University Campus. The fact that the State Bank of Travancore has a branch in the University Campus is not disputed. In fact, remittances to the University of Calicut towards various types of fees is made into the State Bank of Travancore. I therefore find nothing improper in the statement made by the Registrar that though the demand draft was one issued by the Indian Bank, it was drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Calicut University Campus in favour of the Controller of Examinations. The tender submitted by the third respondent was therefore not liable to be rejected. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa