IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33976 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- E.Y. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. YOUSUF LABBA, ELAVAKKATTAYYATH HOUSE, A.K. KULANGARA.P.O., NOORANAD, ALLEPPEY DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, MAVELIKARA-690 101. 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB-DIVISION, MAVELIKARA-690 101. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 33976 of 2010 V ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Respondent invited tenders for executing maintenance work at different stations. Among the tenders that were received in response thereto, the tender submitted by the petitioner was the lowest. Subsequently, the fourth respondent decided to cancel the tender and to re-tender the work. It is this decision of the fourth respondent that is challenged in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that in the tender notification itself, the respondents had reserved their right to accept or reject any tender that is received by them and also to cancel the tender notice itself. It is stated that although the petitioner's tender was the lowest, on examination of the bids, they were satisfied that even the lowest rate quoted was exorbitant. According to the W.P.(C) No.33976/10 : 2 : respondents, it was for that reason they decided to cancel the tender and to re-tender the work. 3. Respondents having invited the tenders, it was always open to them to cancel the same also, provided the said decision is the bonafide one. On facts, it is specific case of the respondents that the lowest rate offered was exorbitant and it was for that reason they cancelled the tender. There is nothing to conclude that the said decision is not a bonafide one. Therefore, the said decision is liable to be upheld and I do so. However, I record the submission of the respondent that in the subsequent tender, the petitioner can participate on the same EMD that the petitioner has already deposited. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge