IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 20195 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- A. NAZAR, ANJILIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLAKINAR,ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM 695 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE,PATTOM PALACE PO TRIVANDRUM 695 004 ADDL.R3. M/S.MRS ROADWAYS, T.C.31/123, CHACKAL, TRIVANDRUM 695024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.RAHIM (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.11462/10 DT 16/8/10) ADV. M/S.VARGHESE & JACOB FOR R1,2 SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1,2 SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH FOR R1,2 SMT.S.KARTHIKA FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20195 OF 2010 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted a tender for transportation of food grains from FCI godown at Alappuzha. However, along with the tender documents, he did not produce the solvency certificate as required. He requested for extension of time and that was declined and therefore writ petition was filed seeking orders requiring the respondents to accept Ext.P3 solvency certificate and consider his tender. 2. In WP(C) No.9368/10 concerning the award of contract for transportation of food grains from the FCI Godown, Kuttipuram, this Court has already held that when mandatory condition of the tender required production of solvency certificate, the same should be produced along with the tender itself and that a relaxation of the tender condition as sought for is impermissible. Therefore, in principle, the contentions of the petitioner stands concluded by the said judgment. 3. Petitioner however submits that if this standard is applied, the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent is also WPC No. 20195/10 :2 : defective. This contention is raised mainly referring to the averments in para 4 of the affidavit dated 5/8/2010 filed by the FCI. However, a reading of the said para shows that along with the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent, he had produced photocopy of the solvency certificate and the original was later accepted. This therefore shows that unlike the case of the petitioner where solvency certificate was not produced, the 3rd respondent had produced solvency certificate, but the only defect was that it was a photocopy. In my view, the acceptance of the original in lieu of the photocopy does not amount to relaxation as sought for by the petitioner. 4. Further, there is no prayer in the writ petition to quash the tender awarded to the 3rd respondent. In that view, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp