IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7380 of 2009(N) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOSE CHERIAN,PANAMTHANAM HOUSE, MUDAVOOR.PO, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.MATHEWS SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ACCOUNT CLOSING UNIT, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 7380 OF 2009 (N) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T In respect of a 1992 model Road Roller, bids were invited by the respondents and Ext.P1 is the auction notice. It would appear that the method adopted was tender cum auction and Ext.P1 is the auction notice. Ext.P2 is the tender document, that was issued to the petitioner, who had quoted Rs.3,54,000/-. According to the petitioner, his offer was the highest, and on being informed of its acceptance, he remitted Rs.2 lakhs as per Ext.P3. However, the bid was not confirmed and while the petitioner was awaiting confirmation, he received Ext.P4 inviting revised offers. It is stated that auction in pursuance to Ext.P4 is now scheduled to 12/3/2009. It is at that stage the writ petition has been filed praying that the respondents should be directed to confirm the auction in his favour and the Road Roller should be delivered to him on payment of the balance amount. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents has instructions in the matter and he submits that in response to Ext.P1, offers were received and the highest bid received was WPC 7380/09 :2 : Rs.4,50,000/-. It is stated that the highest bidder did not comply with the tender conditions and it was therefore that the offer of Rs.3,54,000/- made by the petitioner was provisionally accepted. Thereafter complaints were received about the low value at which the machinery was proposed to be sold and considering the same, the respondents have decided to invite revised bids from the participants in the tender cum auction pursuant to Ext.P1. It is stated that it was in pursuance to this decision that Ext.P4 was issued, the last date of which is tomorrow (12/3/2009). 3. Admittedly, the bid in favour of the petitioner has not been confirmed so far although he has remitted Rs. 2 lakhs. From the submissions made by the respondents, it is evident that though they have not cancelled the bids already invited, their endeavour is to realise a better value for the machinery in question. 4. In my view, so long as the bid is not confirmed in his favour, petitioner cannot have any legally enforceable grievance even if the respondents have taken steps for inviting fresh bids. In view of this, as at present, I see nothing wrong with Ext.P4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp