IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 26281 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- KOLLAM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q 1353, KAVANADU, KOLLAM-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SOUTH CIRCLE, NEAR P.M.G., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH - R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.26281 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, a Labour Contract Society accepted a tender pursuant to Exhibit P2 notification issued in that that by the 2nd respondent. Petitioner quoted 29% above the estimate rate of Rs.73 lakhs. There were two other tenderers. One of them quoted 28% above and other quoted 13.6% above the estimate amounts respectively. Person who quoted the lowest was a private party. Petitioner contends that Society is entitled to get the work awarded based on the willingness expressed to undertake the work for 10% above the lowest quoted rate in the light of Exhibit-P1. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is inter alia contended that the price preference clause would not be applicable to the works executed pursuant to the allotment of funds made by the Central Government. Government of India is not W.P ( C) No.26281 of 2008 2 favourably inclined towards the financial sacrifice involved in the award of contracts to a Labour Contract Society on the strength of any price preference clause which they claim in that regard. 3. It is pointed out that the work in question is sought to be implemented under a centrally sponsored scheme in the fishermen sector. It is further pointed out that a decision will have to be taken by the Government and therefore, the 2nd respondent has forwarded the papers to the Government. Having heard the counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of recording the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. The contentions of the petitioner are left open. It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action subsequent to the decision which the Government will have to take in the matter based on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent , without delay. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.26281 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.26281 of 2008 4