IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 20246 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- S.MOHAN, S/O.K.SUBRAMANIYAN, AGED 47 YEARS, CHENNIKKARA NULLIPADI, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT. GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 121. 2.* ASWINI, AMAY, 3RD WARD, KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY, * CORRECTED KASARAGOD, PIN 671 121 * THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS “ ASWANY.K.,W/O SHARATH KUMAR, MOODUMANE, DADHIDA, DADHIBAGILU, AMAY, KASARAGOD” * ASPER ORDER DT.17/9/2010 IN I.A.12635/10 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.20246/2010-E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SHORT TENDER NOTIFICATION NO.B2-53/2010 DATED 13/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/2010 TO 31/03/2011. P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BY REGISTERED POST UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P4 COPY OF THE REPLY NO.C2/879/10 DATED 21/06/2010 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. B2- 720/2009 DATED 22/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 20246 of 2010 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the validity of the tender awarded to the second respondent for cleaning soiled linen of the Government General Hospital, Kasaragod, for the period from 01-04-2010 to 31-03-2011. 2. Ext.P1 is the tender notice issued by the first respondent inviting tenders for the aforesaid work. In response thereto, two tenders were received, copies of which are Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). Ext.R1(a) is the tender submitted by the petitioner along with the draft agreement. Ext.R1(b) is the other tender that was submitted by none other than the petitioner's wife Smt.Selvi. Among the two, the tender submitted by the petitioner's wife was the lowest. However, taking note of the fact that the persons, who attested the documents and other circumstances, suspecting that the tender was submitted in collusion between the two tenderers, W.P.(C) No.20246/10 : 2 : the first respondent declined to process the tender further. 3. The counter affidavit shows that the decision not to proceed with Ext.P1 tender was published on the notice board on 21-02-2010 and that on the next day, the Hospital Development Committee meeting decided to entrust the work on temporary basis to one Kudumbasree in the Kasaragod Municipal area. Thereafter, on 22-05-2010, Ext.P5 re-tender notice was published, inviting fresh tenders and according to the respondents, tender notice was issued to the petitioner and his wife also. Though the petitioner and wife did not make any tender in response to Ext.P5, two tenders were received and among the two, one submitted by the second respondent on behalf of Sreedevi Ayalkoottam was the lowest tender. A copy of the tender submitted by the second respondent is Ext.R1(d). Ext.R1(d) was accepted and the tender was awarded to the second respondent. 4. In this writ petition, complaint of the petitioner is against the cancellation of the tender pursuant to Ext.P1 and W.P.(C) No.20246/10 : 3 : he also challenges the decision taken by the respondents to award the tender to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the whole proceedings were manipulated to ensure that the second respondent is awarded the tender. It is stated that no notice of cancellation was published and the second respondent was even permitted to submit a tender at lower rate than the rate quoted by the petitioner and his wife. 5. Apart from the averments regarding the manipulations and malafides against the first respondent, there is absolutely no material before this Court to accept the plea raised by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not persuaded to act upon the plea of malafides or other irregularities raised by the petitioner. 6. First of all, the petitioner cannot seek any relief in this writ petition for the reason that, even going by the case pleaded, among the two tenders that were received in response to Ext.P1, the tender submitted by the petitioner's wife Smt.Selvi was the lowest. Therefore, even if the W.P.(C) No.20246/10 : 4 : respondents had proceeded in pursuance to Ext.P1, petitioner would not have been the successful tenderer. Therefore, the cancellation of the tender by the respondents has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner to seek redressal before this Court. 7. That apart, once a tender is invited, it is always open to the authority to go for re-tender if the response received is not acceptable for any reason. In this case, admittedly, the tenders received in response to Ext.P1 were from the petitioner and his wife. The agreement and other documents attached to the tenders also showed the involvement of common parties and this made the respondents to suspect that the tenders were made by the husband and wife in collusion among themselves. It was, therefore, that they decided not to proceed with Ext.P1 tender and to go for a fresh tender. Unless the petitioner succeed in establishing that the aforesaid decision is vitiated by malafides, this Court cannot interfere with such an W.P.(C) No.20246/10 : 5 : administrative decision. As already said, there is no acceptable material in support of this plea of malafides and if so, the said decision of the authorities is to be upheld. 8. Facts pleaded in the counter affidavit show that when re-tender notice was published, notice was issued to the petitioner also. However, he did not submit his tender availing of that opportunity. In any case, from among the tenders received in response to Ext.P5, the lowest one, viz., Ext.R1 (d), was by the second respondent. The rates quoted by the second respondent as reflected in Ext.R1(d) shows that it was lower than the rate quoted by the petitioner's wife in pursuance to Ext.P1. Therefore, in such circumstances, the acceptance of the rate quoted in response to the second tender notice is legal. On an over all consideration, I do not find any ground to interfere with this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks