IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2620 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.R.SANU, MANAGING PARTNER DIAMOND TRANSPORTS, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE PAIPRA, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONS LTD, KERALA STATE OFFICE PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI 36, ERNAKULAM. SHRI E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC, IOC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.2620/2010-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the opportunity to submit tender pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent-Corporation. 2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the notification. It is pointed out that the requirement as per Ext.P1 is, tanker lorries having 20 KL capacity. But it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has processed tenders received in respect of 24KL capacity also and coming to know of the same, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting a re-tender including tanker lorries having 24 KL capacity. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2. It is also contended that if 24 KL capacity tanker lorries were also notified or required, the petitioner and like persons having lorries with 24 KL capacity could have quoted the lowest rate for the transportation of the material concerned. 3. It is also pointed out that the technical bid alone has been opened and therefore, the consideration of the petitioner's tender will not cause any harm to the respondent. W.P.(C). No.2620/2010 -:2:- 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation invited my attention to Ext.P1 at page No.10 of the writ petition, where under the heading 'Scope of Work', in paragraph (I), it is mentioned that “the estimated Tank Truck requirement is indicative and is subject to change”. Against Tank Truck Requirement, it is shown as (20 KL). It is pointed out that many persons having tanker lorries with 24 KL Capacity had submitted tenders and in the light of the specific prescription in Ext.P1, the respondent- Corporation is entitled to consider the same. 5. Ext.P2 is dated 31/12/2009. Going by Ext.P1, the last date was 21/12/2009. In the light of the specific provision in paragraph (I) of Ext.P1, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, it cannot be proper as he had not submitted any tender at the right point of time. In the absence of any tender submitted by him, no effective relief can be granted in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms