IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1109 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8056/2011 Dated 25/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT: -------------- K.K.KUNHI, S/O.SAYED SHEIK KOYA, KUNHILIKKAL HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRTOR, KAVARATHI ISLANDS, KAVARATHI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP 682 555. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF WORKS, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI ISLANDS, KAVARATHI 682 555. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.P.W.D. AMINI DIVISION, AMINI ISLANDS, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP 682 552 4. N.NANDAKUMARAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.P.W.D., AMINI DIVISION, AMINI ISLANDS, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP 682 552. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 TO3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.No.1109 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the standing counsel appearing for the Lakshadweep Administration. 2. The appellant's claim to have been awarded a contract for construction of additional rooms in a school in Amini island at Lakshadweep. The appellant's case is that before contract was awarded, the respondents cancelled the same and proceeded with tendering the work again which is one and the same. However, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no contract was awarded to the appellant though he had submitted a tender for the work. In fact, tender was returned and the appellant was given an opportunity to withdraw the earnest money. The project as originally conceived was modified and according to the W.A.No.1109/2011 2 respondents under the master plan a larger building was proposed for which separate tenders were called for. It is against these proceedings, the appellant filed the Writ Petition, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge. 3. Before us also the appellant raised the contention that cancellation of contract awarded to him is without any basis. However, the appellant has no material to substantiate that work was awarded to him and if so on what terms. In fact, the appellant only submitted a tender for the work notified by the respondent which was later cancelled. Admittedly, the original tender was cancelled on account of modification proposed to the project under the master plan. We do not know why the appellant did not submit tender when the work was retendered with modification. Eventhough the appellant submitted that when the work was retendered it was in the same style as originally tendered, standing counsel submitted that there was a mistake in the retender and the same is corrected by issuing corrigendum. We do not think there is any scope for interference because the appellant has no vested right to take W.A.No.1109/2011 3 up the work because contract was not awarded to him and by submitting a tender the appellant does not get any right to get the work awarded. When the project originally conceived itself was given up certainly the work cannot be awarded based on tender submitted by the appellant. It was for the appellant to quote for the work when it was tendered again in the modified form vide Ext.P6. The appellant has not participated in the said tender which only shows that he is not interested in the new work proposed to be awarded. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ( P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/4/8