IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12688 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHAJI THOMAS, PULINTHANATHU HOUSE, ALPARA POST, IDUKKI DIST. 2. MANOJ SKARIA, AYYIKKAL HOUSE, THADIYAMPADU POST, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS, CENTRAL ZONE, THRISSUR. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12688/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 notification was issued by the respondent herein inviting tenders for the work namely “construction of the District Collectors Bungalow at Painavu, Idukki.”. Petitioners obtained tender forms on 15.4.2009 and as per the notification, the last date for receipt of the tender is 4.00 pm on 16.4.2009. They had delivered the tender forms for despatch to the tendering authority on 15.4.2009 itself and in the normal course, same would have reached the respondent before 4.00 pm on 16.4.2009. It so happened that at the last moment the postal department declared 16.4.2009 as a holiday, in connection with the polling to the Lok Sabha held on the same date. It is the admitted case that when the last date for receipt of tenders is declared as a holiday or happens to be a holiday, then the last date for receipt of tenders would automatically stand W.P.(C).12688/2009 2 extended to the next working day. It is therefore, not disputed by the respondent that if the tenders had been delivered by 5.00 pm on 17.4.2009 then respondent would have treated the same as one received in compliance with the tender notification. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the statement, filed by the respondent read as follows:- In the particular case only two persons namely Sri.Shaji Thomas and Sri.Manoj Scaria has purchased the tender documents from this office and the above two persons posted the tender by speed post on 15.4.2009. Even though the last date fixed for the receipt of the tender document was on 16.4.2009, due to election proceedings this date was declared as public holiday. Automatically the next working day, ie., 17.4.2009 became as the last date for the receipt of the tender documents. The tender documents were received in this office only on W.P.(C).12688/2009 3 18.4.2009, ie., after one day fixed for the receipt of tender documents. Post tender relaxation is not permitted due t this and tenders received from Shaji Thomas and Manoj Scaria were not considered and not opened. No steps have been taken to cancel the tender notification and to re-tender the work. it is submitted that the department has no objection to accept these two tenders if court direct accordingly as the persons who purchased the tender documents had submitted their offer. There will be no chance for any other claim in this regard. 2. Obviously, it was open to the respondent to have treated the receipt of tenders as beyond the time mentioned in the tender notification, even if in the normal practice of extending the last date for receipt of tenders by one day, was adopted in the present case. But I take note of the fact that the petitioners alone had purchased the tender forms within the last date stipulated. In other words, W.P.(C).12688/2009 4 petitioners alone had responded to the tender notification. In the normal course of the proceedings, despatch of the tender forms on 15.4.2009 would have ensured delivery within the time stipulated in the tender notification. In these circumstances, especially taking note of the fact that nobody else had responded to the tender notification and going by the statement filed by the respondent, which does not contain any objection in considering the tenders that had been received by him, I am of the view that the respondent shall proceed to consider the tenders submitted by the petitioners as having been received within the time stipulated. He shall then proceed to process the same in accordance with its terms and conditions. I make it clear that the direction is intended only to require the respondent to treat the tenders as having been received in time and this direction need not be treated as an expression of opinion of this Court either as to the merits of the tender or as W.P.(C).12688/2009 5 one requiring the tender processing authority to necessarily accept the tender of any one of these persons. Further it would be open to the respondent to take such steps as are necessary by way of re-tender, if it is felt that more offers are desirable. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs