IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37050 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.S.BINU, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BINU AND CO., PEZHUMTHURUTHU, PERUMON P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, (CIVIL CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH K.S.E.BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37050 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner has sought for a direction to the second respondent to accept Ext.P9 tender submitted by him in response to Ext.P5 tender notice and to issue purchase order from that basis. It is stated by the petitioner that although the tenders received have been opened on 18.10.2007, a final decision in the matter has not been taken. According to him, the only intention of the respondents is to delay final decision in the matter as there is a proposal to blacklist the petitioner. It is stated that Ext.P7 show cause notice calling for explanation as to why the name of the petitioner should not be blacklisted, was issued on 12.11.2007, and that on receipt of Ext.P7, the petitioner had submitted his explanation and that the matter has not been finalised as on date. Petitioner submits that the proposal for blacklisting can be no justification for refusing to consider the tender that he has made. For this purpose, he is relying on the judgment of this Court in Krishnan vs. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 499). The reading of the aforesaid judgment shows that in an identical situation, it was argued that, WPC37050/2007 2 a decision on a tender submitted was deferred due to the pendency of a proposal to blacklist the petitioner therein. However, examining this contention, this Court ordered that proposal for blacklisting is not relevant while considering the tender that was made. As on the date when issue came up for consideration, since the petitioner was eligible, the tender made by the petitioner it was directed that the tender should be considered by the authority. 2. In this case even as on date, the proposal has not been finalised and if the petitioner satisfied the tender condition and the tender made by the petitioner is otherwise valid, the respondents are bound to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner. 3. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the respondent shall consider the tenders received in response to Ext.P5 tender notice and take a final decision in the matter, which shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl