IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7794 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.VIGNESH, S/O.P.K.ARUMUGHAM, MANAGER, K.V.R.ENTERPRISES, REDDI PALAYAM, COVAL ROAD, KANNUR - 2. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.7794 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of the K.V.R. Enterprises which conducts business of Foam business and P.U.Moulded cushions in the name and style of K.V.R. Enterprises. The company is based on Karur, Tamil Nadu District. 2. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the tender notice issued by the respondent for supply of various type P.U.Moulded seat cushion. Exhibit P2 is another tender notice dated 16/12/2009 for supply of P.U.Moulded cushions of different sizes for seat/back rest of K.S.R.T.C Buses. According to the petitioner, he did not submit these tenders because the specifications shown in the tenders are highly impracticable and not profitable. It is in these circumstances, after filing a representation this writ petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that pursuant to the tender notification they have received three tenders and the matter is now pending finalisation and orders are expected to be issued within a short time. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted W.P.(C)Nos.7794 of 2010 2 that he could not submit the tender in the light of the particulars and specifications shown in Exts.P1 and P2. 5. Since the petitioner has not responded to the tender notices the only remedy is to pursue his grievances before the authorities for consideration in future. Writ petition is therefore closed, leaving open the contentions of the petitioner. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj