IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12835 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.MODERN LABORATORIES, NO.45, SECTOR D-2, SANWER ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, INDORE 425105, MADHYA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI.ARUN KHARIA. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. KERALA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD., NEAR WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, THAYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-14, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA MEDICAL SERV.CORPN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12835 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P3 order, by which the tender submitted by the petitioner is rejected by the 2nd respondent. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for respondents. 3. Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that, the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the petitioner is included in the black list issued by the Karnataka State Drugs Logistics and Ware Housing Society (KSDL & WS) and it is under the above circumstances Ext.P3 order was issued. 4. The tender of the petitioner was rejected in terms of the provisions that contained under Clause 5.2.5 of the conditions of Tender. However, it is discernible from Ext.P3 order that, the 2nd respondent himself had made it clear and given liberty to the petitioner to prove that the Karnataka State Drugs Logistics and Ware Housing Society has revoked or cancelled their order, 2 W.P.(C)No.12835 of 2011 which referred as item no.4 in Ext.P3 or there is any other orders from a court of law against the implementation of the decisions of KSDL & WS in this matter and they shall furnish it to the respondents on receipt of Ext.P3 communication. In the light of the above clause of Ext.P3, I am of the view that, it is only just and proper to relegate the petitioner to approach 2nd respondent. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had already approached the 2nd respondent in terms of the clause contained in Ext.P3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, though the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent, their request was not considered in terms of the above referred provision contained in Ext.P3. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent by invoking the above referred provisions contained in Ext.P3 order and then it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order on merit and it is made clear that the 3 W.P.(C)No.12835 of 2011 petitioner is free to produce whatever materials it proposed to produce, including Ext.P2. It is further made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on merits regarding the claim of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders on merit, untrammeled by any of the findings or observations contained in this judgment. The petitioner is further directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent within two weeks from today, along with his request in this regard. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/