IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH APRIL 2009 / 25TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 837 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8866/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): 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.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY, NORTH CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR, PWD COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE. G.P SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/04/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO.839 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. ================== W.A.Nos.837 & 839 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 15th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Siri Jagan, J.: In these writ appeals, the petitioner in the writ petition is challenging the judgments of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C). Nos.6912/2009 and 8866/2009. Both relate to the same subject matter, viz., non-acceptance of the financial bid submitted by the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner does not have the stipulated qualifications. Originally, the writ petition was dismissed, against which, the petitioner filed W.A.No.584/2009. It was dismissed as withdrawn reserving the liberty of the petitioner to seek review of the judgment before the learned Single Judge. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a review petition, which was dismissed by order dated 27.3.2009. The same is under challenge in W.A.No.839/2009. Dismissal of another writ petition challenging a consequential order is challenged in W.A.No.837/2009. 2. One of the qualifications prescribed for being eligible for participating in the tender process is that the tenderer should have liquid assets or availability of credit facility for an amount of Rs.1.34 crores. Admittedly, along with the tender, the petitioner filed a bank statement to the effect that the petitioner has credit facility to the tune w.a.837/09 & cc. 2 of Rs.1.20 crores. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has resources higher than Rs.1.34 crores. The petitioner now produces certain documents in support of the same. The learned Single Judge considering the meanings of the words, “liquid assets and resources” came to the conclusion that it is not sufficient that the petitioner has resources worth more than Rs.1.34 crores. He should prove that he has liquid assets worth Rs.1.34 crores. None of the documents produced by the petitioner along with the tender documents proved the same. The petitioner wanted the learned Single Judge to consider two documents; one produced along with the tender documents and another produced subsequently. The first document is the balance sheet as on 31.3.2008, showing that the petitioner had a deposit worth Rs.3,30,18,640/-. The learned Single Judge found that the said balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 cannot be considered for the purpose of deciding the eligibility of the petitioner as on 21.1.2009, when the tender was submitted by the petitioner. The second was a bank certificate dated 4.3.2009 showing that the bank has agreed to provide credit facilities to the extent of Rs.1.50 crores. The learned Single Judge found that the document being one dated 4.3.2009 produced subsequently cannot be relied upon to decide the eligibility of the petitioner. 3. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner we are unable w.a.837/09 & cc. 3 to take a different view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. It is settled law that tender documents have to be construed strictly. The qualifications of tenderers have to be considered on the basis of the information and documents supplied by the tenderer along with the tender. Admittedly, going by the documents produced along with the tender by the petitioner, the petitioner is not qualified, since he has credit facility of only Rs.1.20 crores. He has also not produced documents to prove liquid assets worth Rs.1.34 crores. Therefore, as per the tender documents, the petitioner is not qualified. The petitioner cannot prove his qualifications on the basis of balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 or documents produced subsequent to the last date for submitting tenders. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these writ appeals and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge