IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16027 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LIBO JOHN, S/O.JOHN AUGUSTIN, AGED 30 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, COCHIN. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICERS, IDUKKI DIVISION, THODUPUZHA. 3. GEORGE V.L., VETTUKALLEL HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY P.O, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R3 SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, CGC FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.16027 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an unsuccessful tenderer who submitted a tender pursuant to Ext.P1 notice issued by the 2nd respondent inviting tenders for mail motor contract, the purpose of which is to offer vehicles of the type specified in Ext.P1 to carry postal articles. The tender of the 3rd respondent was accepted. The petitioner's contention is that the vehicle offered by the 3rd respondent does not satisfy the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1. According to him, on the other hand, the vehicle offered by the petitioner satisfies those conditions. In the above circumstances the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the stand taken by the 2nd respondent rejecting the tender submitted by the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and violation of the express tender conditions and Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to award the contract in pursuance of Ext.P1 to the petitioner,” 2. I have heard both sides. w.p.c.16027/08 2 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. w.p.c.16027/08 3 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 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 w.p.c.16027/08 4 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 w.p.c.16027/08 5 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. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge