IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 584 of 2009 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6912/2009 DATED 4.3.2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------- M/S.CONCORD CONSTRUCTIONS, KALLATRA COMPOUND, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOTTACHERRY, KANHANGAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, IBRAHIM KALLATRA. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY, NORTH CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR, PWD COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.584 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 12h day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT P.R.Raman, J. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6912 of 2009. The respondent herein invited tenders for the work of improvement of Riding quality on NH 213. The appellant submitted its tender. Apprehending that without considering its bid, the respondent is proceeding to finalize the award of work to somebody else, the appellant approached this court by filing the writ petition. 2. The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up for consideration was appraised by the learned Government Pleader on instructions that as per the tender conditions a bidder has to submit details of liquid assets or availability of credit facilities to the tune of Rs.1.34 crores. But the appellant produced evidence of credit facility only to the tune of Rs.1.20 crores and it is for that reason its bid was rejected. The bid was also opened on 27.2.2009. In paragraph 3 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge held that as per the tender conditions liquid assets or availability of credit facilities must have been to the tune of Rs.1.34 crores which position is not disputed by the appellant. The fact that the amount which the W.A.No.584 of 2009 2 petitioner could produce is to the tune of Rs.1.20 crores is also not in dispute. The deficit was explained as a result of a mistake that was committed at its office. In other words, no attempt was made to show that the factual position regarding the availability of liquid assets or credit facility by the appellant would exceed Rs.1.34 crores if other liquid assets, if any, are stated to have been mentioned or produced evidence thereof. No such argument was raised before the learned Single Judge and now the attempt is to show that besides the credit facility of Rs.1.20 crores made available by the Bank the undertaking given by the appellant/petitioner as also its own resources would show that it has satisfied the tender condition of providing liquid assets/credit facility even exceeding Rs.1.56 lakhs. This being not a point urged before the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal. 3. At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the writ appeal with liberty to move the learned Single Judge by filing a review petition. Granting leave as sought for the writ appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE vns