IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29536 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.AHAMED KUTTY, S/O.AHAMED MUSALIAR, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VELLILA, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM-679 324. BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J., SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM), SRI.K.R.GANESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, P.B.NO.404, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DOOR NO.30/1521-A, BAY UNDER THE BRIDGE, NORTHERN SIDE OF RAILWAY, PONNURUNNI, VYTILLA, COCHIN-682 019. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASREE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SC, KSCC LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.29536/2011 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1; TRUE COPY OF G.O.DATED 28/4/1988. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF G.O.DATED 7/8/1997. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29536 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ExtP3 is a tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent, inviting competitive tenders from the panel of registered contractors. 2. Petitioner though a registered A class contractor, is not an empaneled contractor, as a result of which he is ineligible to submit his application in response to Ext.P3. It is therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking to declare Ext.P3 to the extent that tenders are invited only from empaneled contractors and the ground urged is that such a restriction is unconstitutional and is in violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of constitution of India. 3. According to respondents 2 and 3 prior to the issuance of Ext.P3, they had already published a notification inviting applications from contractors prescribing the norms of such empanelment. It is from the W.P.(C) No. 29536 OF 2011 :2 : applications received in response to the said notification, they have selected contractors who satisfied the norms prescribed by the first respondent. It is stated that such an empanellment has been done to make use of the same as and when tenders are to be invited. 4. In my view, for a commercial transaction like invitation of tenders, it is always open to the respondent to prescribe norms for inviting tenders and to maintain a panel of such contractors. The respondent has only followed such an acceptable system and there is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in such a system. 5. The petitioner admittedly did not respond to the above notification for empanelment and if that be so, petitioner cannot complain that Ext.P3 violates any of the constitutional provision warranting interference by this court. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-