IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 39 of 2009(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16027/2008 Dated 02/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LIBO JOHN, S/O.JOHN AUGUSTIN, AGED 30 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHOBHA KOSHY, (AGE & FATHER'S NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, COCHIN. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN ,ASG B/O FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 39 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of violation of the directions in Annexure 1 judgment in W.P.(C).No.16027/2008. The operative portion of the judgment is contained in paragraphs 3 and 4, which read as follows; '3. Both sides have produced photographs of their vehicles. Now the only question I have to decide is as to whether the vehicles offered by the parties satisfy the conditions in Ext.P1. The relevant condition in Ext.P1 reads thus: “Four wheeler motor vehicles that have run not more than 75000 (Seventy five thousand Kilometers) and which are not more than four years old and have a load carrying capacity of not less than 500 (Five hundred) Kilograms and two postal officials and armed escorts whenever required. The four sides and roof of the four wheeler vehicle should be paneled with completely water tight metallic sheets and should have doors with locking arrangements. The body of the four wheeler (excluding Driver's cabin) should have a floor area of not less than 1.5 Sq.mts. and the internal height above the floor should not be less than 1.25 metres.” Going by the above, the following are the conditions:- (i) Motor vehicles shall be four wheeler which have not run more than 75,000 kilometers and are not more than four years old with a load carrying capacity of not less than 500 kgs. (ii) The vehicle should be one suitable for carrying, in addition to the postal articles, 2 postal officials and armed escorts whenever required. (iii) Four sides and roof of the four wheeler vehicle should be paneled with completely water tight metallic sheets and should have doors with locking arrangements. (iv) The body of the four wheeler, excluding driver's cabin, should have a floor area of not less than 1.5 sq.mts. 4. As I have said the only question that now remains is as to whether the vehicles offered by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent would satisfy the above conditions. It is not disputed before me that the vehicle offered by the 3rd respondent does not have water tight metallic c.o.c.39/09 2 sheet panels on four sides. Admittedly three sides of the vehicles are glass panelled. In the case of the vehicle offered by the petitioner, going by Ext.P2 registration certificate, the seating capacity is only two. Therefore, the vehicle can carry only one person in addition to the driver. Therefore, the vehicle offered by the petitioner does not satisfy the second condition mentioned above. Further, on the back side of the vehicle of the petitioner also there is glass panel. In such circumstances, the vehicle offered by the petitioner also does not satisfy the conditions in Ext.P1. Therefore, both the vehicles cannot be accepted as in compliance with Ext.P1. Whatever be other justifications for selecting the vehicle offered by the 3rd respondent, now offered by respondents 1 and 2, it remains a fact that the vehicle offered by the 3rd respondent is not in accordance with the tender conditions in Ext.P1. Therefore, both the petitioner's vehicle and that of the 3rd respondent's vehicle cannot be accepted as sufficient for satisfying the needs of respondents 1 and 2 pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. In the above circumstances, the award of tender in favour of the 3rd respondent is not in accordance with Ext.P1 tender conditions and accordingly, the same is quashed. It is not disputed before me that presently the vehicle offered by the petitioner is being used by the respondents. Since the same also cannot be continued further, the alternative of respondents 1 and 2 is either to select a new vehicle strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 notification or if it is not practically possible to get vehicles with those conditions, to issue fresh tender notification containing tender conditions which can be satisfied by intending tenderers. But the present situation of using the very same vehicle which does not satisfy Ext.P1 tender conditions cannot be continued indefinitely. In the above circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are directed either to select the tender offering a vehicle satisfying the conditions in Ext.P1 or to issue fresh tender notification containing tender conditions which can be practically satisfied by intending tenderers. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Respondents 1 and 2 can continue the use of the present vehicle for a further period of two months within which time they shall complete the fresh tender process failing which the use of the present vehicle shall be discontinued.' 2. According to the petitioner, subsequent to my judgment, fresh tenders were invited incorporating the very same tender conditions, which were considered in Annexure 1 judgment. The petitioner submits that since the very same vehicle offered by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition has now been accepted with the same tender conditions, the present acceptance of the very same vehicle amounts to contempt of court. c.o.c.39/09 3 3. A counter affidavit has been filed and an additional affidavit has also been filed by the respondent. They do not dispute that in the new tender floated, the tender conditions remain unchanged. According to them, the defect noted by this Court with regard to the vehicle offered by the 3rd respondent was that the said vehicle does not have water tight metallic sheet panels on four sides. They have now stated thus in the affidavit dated 11.1.2010. “6. The Tender has been issued as per the specification given by the Postal Directorate which has all India relevance and hence in order to comply with the order of this Honorable Court, a fresh tender was issued on 17.7.08. This Honorable Court had observed that the tender condition has to be revised. In obedience to the observation made by this Honorable Court, the Chief Postmaster General took up the case with Postal Directorate and the Directorate concurred to relax the condition “fully covered metallic body” with specification that the “relaxation does not result into any compromise on security of mail during carriage, and mail bags are fully protected inside during the rains etc.” vide their letter no. 18-8/2001-D (Pt) dated 30.6.2009. It is submitted that the said letter of the Directorate was received only on 08.07.2009 in the office of the first respondent, and since the tender was already issued, the first respondent was not in a position to correct the tender condition. However, the first respondent is ready to change the tender conditions in all future cases in Idukki Division.” 4. The contention of th petitioner is that a Maruthi Omni vehicle, if modified, by panelling the body with metallic sheets on four sides, it would be impossible to drive that vehicle. But I do not find any such averment in the contempt case. What has been stated in the contempt case is thus in paragraph 3: “3. Consequently, a revised tender notification dtd.17.7.2008 was issued by the department with similar conditions as to the original one. By Annexure 1 judgment this Hon'ble Court held that the Maruthi Omni vehicle did not qualify the tender condition. Another person offered a Mahindra single cab pickup truck which fulfilled those conditions. Since the petitioner did not possess such a vehicle he did not take part in the tender. Sri.George.V.L. however did not change the vehicle but without c.o.c.39/09 4 getting approval from the R.T.O. or any competent authority under the motor vehicles department, illegally altered it and removed the glass panels and welded metal sheet thereto. This has been done without getting approval of the motor vehicle department. Even after such illegal modification, the vehicle offered by Sri.George.V.L. does not have the necessary seating capacity, cargo capacity or even the loading area. It is in all respects similar to the vehicle offered by the petitioner earlier which was found unsuitable by this Hon'ble Court. However, now the respondent by order dated 11.12.08 has accepted the tender submitted by Sri.George.V.L. in respect of a vehicle which is already found unsuitable by this Hon'ble Court.” In the same, the petitioner admits that the 3rd respondent had altered the vehicle removing the glass panels and welded metal sheets thereto. He claims that the vehicle does not have the necessary seating capacity or cargo capacity or even the loading area. But in Annexure 1 judgment, I did not notice any such defect in the vehicle. The only defect I noted in the vehicle offered by the 3rd respondent is that it does not have water tight metallic sheet panels on four sides. In any event, in the affidavit dated 11.10.2010, it has been categorically stated that the vehicle has the seating capacity and all other specifications mentioned in the tender notice. In view of the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any willful disobedience with the directions in Annexure 1 judgment, by the respondent. Therefore, I do not find this to be a fit case to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge c.o.c.39/09 5