IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5653 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.NATARAJAN, MACHADAN HOUSE, ALOOR, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 5653 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner, who had submitted a tender in response to Ext.P5 tender notification in respect of Room No.3 in Block A and had even been invited for a negotiation on his tender being found to be the highest tender, is that the Municipality has without assigning any reason cancelled the tender and has issued Ext.P11 order and consequent re-tender notification. On various grounds, the petitioner prays that Ext.P11 rejection order be cancelled and a writ of mandamus be issued to the Municipality to confirm the tender in respect of Room No.3 in Block A in favour of the petitioner and allot him the said room on the basis of the tender for Rs. 10,53,000/- which he had submitted during negotiation as per Ext.P9. The Municipality has filed a statement wherein it is pointed out that there has been great disparity between the rate quoted by the petitioner and the rates in respect of the other three rooms in Block A. WPC.No.5653/08 2 The Municipality according to the statement was justified in rejecting the petitioner's tender. The rejection was in the best interest of the Municipality since much higher amount is expected in re-tender. 2. Though Sri.V.M.Syam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would address very strenuous arguments, I am of the view that considering the obvious position that all the four rooms in Block A tendered as per Ext.P5 is more or less of the same size the Municipality was justified in rejecting the tender which had been provisionally confirmed in favour of the petitioner notwithstanding Ext.P9, on the ground that confirming the petitioner's tender will be against the interest of the Municipality i.e. public interest. I do not find any reason to grant the relies sought for in the writ petition. However, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Municipality to permit the petitioner also to participate in the re-tender, if tender is submitted by the petitioner before 5:00 p.m. on 19/02/2008. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.5653/08 2