IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21000 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ G.FRANCIS, S/O.LATE GNANTHAMUTHAN, AGED 50, F.M.NIVAS, EANTHIKALA, ARAYOOR P.O., (VIA) AMARAVILA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SOUTH CIRCLE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21000/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 8.6.11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 18.7.11 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETER DT 21.7.11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21000 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The respondents invited tender for the construction of cut and cover at Ch.32820 M of RBC near Ramapuram. Petitioner was the only contractor who had quoted 63% above the PAC. He was called for a negotiation and he reduced his quoted rate by 5%. According to the petitioner, while the revised offer was pending consideration, work was retendered by Ext.P2. It is challenging Ext.P2, the writ petition is filed. 2. First of all, petitioner is the only tenderer. The fact that the petitioner responded to the tender notice does not create any right in his favour to impugn the decision of the award not to proceed with the tender notice or to re-tender the work. Even otherwise, Ext.P3 shows that respondents themselves have informed the petitioner that even his revised offer was not acceptable to them. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the decision of the respondents in having gone for re- WPC No. 21000/11 :2 : tender as per Ext.P2. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp