IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35389 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHODOTH KOYA, CONTRACTOR, CHODOTH HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADMINISTRATION OF THE UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, REP. BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, LAKSHADWEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, LPWD CIRCLE OFFICE, KAVARATTI ISLAND. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LPWD AMINI DIVISION, AMINI ISLAND,UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35389 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1 tender notice dated 16.9.2009, the third respondent invited tenders for various items of works. The petitioner submitted his tender in respect of the work described as item No.6 in Ext.P1 tender notice. Four other persons had also submitted tenders. The rate quoted by the petitioner was Rs.300/- below the probable amount of contract. However, the third respondent rejected all the tenders and decided to invite a fresh tender. Ext.P2 letter was thereupon sent to the petitioner informing him that his tender has been rejected. He was also requested to collect the earnest money deposited by him. The petitioner thereupon sent Ext.P3 representation to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The petitioner did not challenge Ext.P2 in this Court at that stage. Later, the third respondent issued Ext.P4 tender notice dated 24.11.2009 inviting fresh tenders for the very same item of work. The last date for obtaining the tender forms was 7.12.2009 and the last date for submission of tenders was 10.11.2009. The petitioner did not apply for tender documents. Instead he sent Ext.P5 letter to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep requesting him to interfere and cancel the rejection of his tender. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 8.12.2009 challenging Exts.P2 and P4 and seeking a writ in the nature of W.P.(C) No. 35389/09 2 mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to accept the tender submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 in respect of the work described in serial No.6 therein. The petitioner contends that as his tender was the lowest, the respondents erred in rejecting his tender. He contends that no valid reasons whatsoever has been set out in Ext.P2 to reject his tender and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent to re-tender the work is arbitrary and illegal. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The tender submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 in respect of the work descried in item No.6 therein was rejected and the decision was communicated to him on 7.10.2009. He did not immediately challenge Ext.P2 in this Court. Instead, he send a letter to the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep requesting him to award the work to him. The work was re-tendered as per Ext.P4 notification. Ext.P1 and P2 will show that besides the work described in item No.6 of Ext.P1 tender notice, the work described in item No.5 of Ext.P1 was also re-tendered. Therefore, it cannot be said that the re-tendering has been resorted to solely with a view to eliminate the petitioner. In my opinion, there is nothing in Ext.P2 which disentitled the petitioner from participating in the tender pursuant to Ext.P4. However, for the reasons best known to him, he did not apply for the tender documents. W.P.(C) No. 35389/09 3 Instead he has chosen to challenge Exts.P2 and P4 in this Court contending that as his tender was the lowest and below the probable amount of contract, it ought to have been accepted. It is settled law that the tendering authority is not bound to accept the tender merely for the reason that it is the lowest. 3. In such circumstances, as the petitioner had no vested right for the award of the work. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2. The tendering authority is the best judge of the situation. In the absence of any proof that the decision to reject the petitioner’s tender was rested on extraneous considerations, I find no ground to interfere with the re- tendering process. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps