IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1217 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21000/2011 Dated 02/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETTIONER: -------------------------- G. FRANCIS, S/O.LATE GNANTHAMUTHAN, AGED 50, F.M. NIVAS, EANTHIKALA, ARAYAOOR.P.O., (VIA) AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, RPERESENTED BY THE SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SOUTH CIRCLE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVACIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1217 OF 2011 and I.A. No. 594 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. Interference declined by the learned Single Judge in the matter of re-tendering the works as per Ext.P2, is sought to be interfered in this appeal. 2. The 3rd respondent invited a tender in respect of certain works and in response to the tender notification, the appellant submitted his tender at 63% above the Probable Amount of Contract(PAC). It appears from the pleadings on record that the appellant was the sole participant in the tender proceedings, who, after negotiations, reduced the rate to 58% above the PAC, thus giving a reduction by 5%. However, it was not palatable to the concerned respondent. As such, the tender quoted by the appellant was rejected and the 3rd respondent proceeded with steps to re-tender as per Ext.P2, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. After considering W.A. No. 1217 of 2011 -:2:- the materials on record, the learned Single Judge declined interference, observing that there was no vested right on the writ petitioner to have the tender alloted to him. The appellant seeks to challenge the said verdict stating that there is no basis for the 3rd respondent to have proceeded with the re-tender proceedings. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, we find that absolutely no legally acceptable ground has been put up so as to call for interference with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. No vested right on the part of the appellant stand established, nor is there any provision of law or binding judicial precedent so as to accept the prayer made by the appellant/writ petitioner. We find no reason to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb