IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23917 of 2007(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.A. SHUKKOOR, MANAGING PARTNER, PARK LANE ENTERPRISES, DOOR NO.XVII/125, KURUMPELLIL BUILDINGS, C.C.N.B. ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.SINDHU MANOJ SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGA, LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, (NS MARKETING), BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 3. K.C.JOSEPH, KEY SYSTEMS, ALAPPUZHA (R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.11111/07 DTD.28.9.07) ADV. SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, SC, BSNL FOR R SRI.GEORGE MATHEW FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23917/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION. P2. COPY OF THE DOCUMENT RELATING ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.12.6.07. P4. COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE R2. P5. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.26.7.O7. P6. COPY OF THE REPLY TO Ext.P5 DTD.28.7.07. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R2A. COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CONDITIONS. B. COPY OF THE SITE PLAN FILED BY THE PETITIONER. C. COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT. D. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.6.07. E. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.7.07 TO THE PETITIONER. F. COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DTD.6.8.07. G. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.30.8.07. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23917 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification for appointment of franchisees issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the petitioner applied. The petitioner was the successful bidder. However, the petitioner could not procure the show-room indicated in the tender documents, since the owner of the rooms had some difference of opinion with the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, took on lease another shop room and forwarded a lease deed of the same to the 2nd respondent for approval. However, by Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the award of tender in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled, EMD should not forfeited and the petitioner should not be black listed from participating in tenders for franchiseeship for next two years. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings seeking the following reliefs: “i. Declare that there has been no violation of any of the conditions of tender contained in Exhibit P2 merely for the reason that petitioner has sought to change the venue of the show room of franchisee awarded to the petitioner. ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quashing the same to the extend it declares that petitioner has violated Clause 20.2 of Exhibit P2, by seeking a change in venue of the show room for franchiseeship. iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to establish the show room of franchisee as prayed w.p.c.23917/07 2 for in Exhibit P4.” 2. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P2 agreement there is no condition that the petitioner shall not change the show room and therefore on account of the fact that the petitioner has changed the show room, the petitioner cannot be faulted. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein they have taken the contention that the tender is location specific and the petitioner's tender has been evaluated on the basis of the site plan for the show room proposed by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek change of the show room after the award of tender. Therefore, they support Ext.P5 show cause notice. 4. I have heard the parties on both sides. 5. I am inclined to accept the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that the tender being location specific, the petitioner cannot, after his bid is accepted, change the location of the show room. As such, I cannot find fault with respondents 1 an 2 in issuing Ext.P5 show cause notice. However, I do not think that for the same, the petitioner should be black listed insofar as it was not any deliberate act on the part of the petitioner, but it was only because he had differences of opinion with the owner of the original show room, he could not procure the same. As such, while confirming the cancellation of the tender in w.p.c.23917/07 3 favour of the petitioner, I direct that the petitioner shall not be blacklisted on the said ground. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge