IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 13430 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.PHILIP, LIFE ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (MECH), IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MECHANICAL SUB DIVISION, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KANNUR. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RAMESH FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 13430/2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 PHOTO COPY OF TENDER NOTICE DT. 23-1-2010. EXT.P2 TENDER SCHEDULE. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 1-3-2010. EXT.P4 REPLY LETTER DT. 12-3-2010. EXT.P5 RE-TENDER NOTICE DT. 25-3-2010. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 4-1-2010. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 13430 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T Pursuant to the notice inviting tenders by the respondents, the petitioner submitted a tender, which happened to be the lowest tender. By Ext. P3, the petitioner was invited for negotiations as to whether the petitioner is willing to reduce the rate. By Ext. P4, the petitioner submitted that he is not willing to reduce the rate, stating reasons for the same. But, subsequently, the tender was re-notified. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 re-tender notice and quashing the same; ii) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the competent among the respondents to consider and pass early orders if found necessary on Ext. P4 with notice to the petitioner and to complete the deal on Ext. P1 accepting the lowest and valid bid of the petitioner.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, which reads thus: “2. Only 2 tenders were received as per Ext. P2, in which Sri. M.P. Philip, M/s. Life Engineers and contractors, Kulathuppuzha has quoted the lowest rate 39.9% above estimate PAC. The other tender received was from Sri. G. Madhavan Nair, M/s. Krishna Engineering works, Perumbavoor at a rate of 43% of above estimate PAC. A negotiation letter dated 01.03.2010 forwarded to the contractor for his willingness to reduce the quota rate. But as per his letter No. 407/KL/209/2009-10 dated 12.03.2010 and he has reported that he is not in a position to reducing the quoted rate. 3. The tendering authority evaluated the facts and understood that, this rate is exorbitant compared to similar works in these region tendered recently. Due to the urgent nature of work and higher quoted rate, we decided to re-tender the above work. W.P.C. No. 13430/10 -: 2 :- 4. In tender notice No. CMU/TECH/3180/2008 dated 23.01.2010 issued to the contractor, it is pointed out that the tendering authority reserves the right to reject any or all the tenders without assigning any reasons. This was agreed by the contractor (copy enclosed). The tendering authority will recommend to the tender committee only if the rates quoted are reasonable, otherwise he has the power to deny the offer and re- tender the work.” It is not necessary that simply because a notification inviting tenders has been published and tenders have been received the lowest among them should be accepted. For adequate reasons, the respondents are perfectly free to re-notify, if the tenders received by them are not satisfactory to them. That is what has been done in this case. I do not find anything wrong with the said action of the respondents. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/