IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7868 of 2008(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- G.KUTTAPPAN, PWD CONTRACTOR, TC 11/1810, NALANDA HOUSE, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7868 OF 2008 J ==================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner complains that a tender submitted by him was refused to be accepted for the reason that the same was sent to the respondents by courier. Petitioner submits that although on earlier occasions tenders submitted through courier have been accepted, against the said practice, this time the respondents are declining to accept the tender. On this basis, writ petition has been filed and a direction is sought to the 2nd respondent to accept the tender and consider the same. 2. Instructions have been received by the learned Government Pleader from the 3rd respondent stating that as per rules in force vide GO(P) No.84/97/PW&T dated 19/8/97, only postal tenders will be considered for all works exceeding the T.S.Powers of Executive Engineer (at present Rs.15 lakhs). WPC 7868/08 :2 : According to the 3rd respondent, it was only because the petitioner had submitted his tender by courier service and as the said mode of service was against the rules governing the submission of tenders, his tender was not considered. If the rules are as above, the 3rd respondent cannot be faulted for non acceptance fo the tender submitted by the petitioner. 3. In so far as the petitioner's contention that on an earlier occasion tender sent by courier service has been accepted, the 3rd respondent would state that the said action was a mistake. A mistake committed by the respondents cannot be a precedent. 4. In view of the above, I cannot find fault with the respondents in refusing to accept the tender submitted by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp