IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2221 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22894/2009 Dated 21/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- HAREENDRA RAJAN, AGED 41, S/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, T.C.65/386, KIRAN, MANILAM, THIRUVALLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TEXT BOOK BRANCH, PADMAVILASOM, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TEXT BOOK OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TEXT BOOK OFFICER, PADMA VILAS, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STORE KEEPER, CENTRAL TEXT BOOK STORE, ERNAKULAM. 5. SACHIDANANDAN NAIR, MANGATTU VEEDU, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27. WA No. 2221 of 2009 -:2:- 6. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, L.106, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM P.O. 7. SOON SUDHAKARAN, A2, HMT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM P.O. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R6 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2221 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. Appellant/petitioner had submitted his tender documents in response to Ext.P1 notification issued by respondent No.2 inviting tenders from loading and unloading contractors for loading, unloading and stacking of text books and paper bundles at Text Book Stores. 2. It is on record that respondent Nos.5 to 7 had also submitted their tender documents apart from the appellant. It appears that respondent No.2 found that the tender documents submitted by all the four persons were defective for one reason or the other. Admittedly, the appellant's tender documents were defective in two respects: (a) he had not produced the Demand Draft from the State Bank of Travancore/State Bank of India as required in Ext.P1 tender notice, W.A.No.2221 of 2009 - 2 - (b) he did not possess five years' experience in the field. After scrutiny of the tender documents, respondent No.2 rejected all of them and decided to call for fresh tenders. The above decision was challenged by the appellant before this Court in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions raised by the appellant found that there was no illegality in the view taken by respondent No.2 to invite fresh tenders. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. As has been mentioned by us earlier, the tender documents submitted by the appellant were defective on two counts, which is conceded by the appellant himself. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.2 had relaxed the condition with regard to experience during last year in the case of respondent No.5. Since the amount quoted by the appellant in his tender was the W.A.No.2221 of 2009 - 3 - lowest, respondent No.2 ought to have accepted it. Learned counsel further contends that insistence for minimum experience is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. Similarly there is no justification in insisting for Demand Draft of a particular Bank. 4. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision reported in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and others, (2004) 5 SCC 364 in this context. We have carefully perused the above judgment. In our view, the above judgment does not have any relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is trite that scope of judicial review in matters relating to contracts is very limited. Court will intervene only if there is apparent arbitrariness or favouritism. In the case on hand, admittedly, respondent No.2 has decided to call for fresh tenders as the tenders submitted by all the four persons were found to be defective for one reason or the other. 5. In our view, respondent No.2 had taken a fair and reasonable stand in deciding to call for fresh tenders. We do W.A.No.2221 of 2009 - 4 - not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is without any merit and therefore it is dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns