IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23529 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SWEETO FRANCIS ,AGED 37 YEARS S/O.BABY FRANCIS, KDAMPATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE MOOSPET ROAD, THRISSUR 5. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY ,TRIVANDRUM -14. 2. SRI.C.RAVEENDRAN, CHIRACKAL HOUSE VILAYOOR PO, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC FOR RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23529/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 16.5.2011. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LTTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 17.8.2011 SENT TO C.RAVEENDRAN. EXT.P2(a): THE LEGIBLE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 17.8.11 SENT TO C.RAVEENDRAN. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 18.8.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23529 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a tender notice issued by the 1st respondent inviting tenders for awarding licence for collection of prescribed parking fee for vehicles parked in the parking area allotted for the places mentioned therein and in so far as this writ petition is concerned, the controversy is in relation to Trichur. 2. Petitioner is an Ex-Service man and according to the petitioner, in respone to Ext.P1, he submitted tender offering `55,00,000/-. It is his case that as against the offer he made, the 2nd respondent submitted offer for `52,00,000/-. It is stated that without accepting his tender, offer made by the 2nd respondent was accepted. The 2nd respondent was called for a negotiation and was issued Ext.P2 letter awarding tender for a period of three years at a total licence fee of `55,05,000/-. It is thereupon challenging Ext.P2, after submitting Ext.P3 representation, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Two contentions are raised. The first one is regarding the lowest offer made by the 2nd respondent. The second WPC No. 23529/11 :2 : contention is that as per the tender notice, the tenderer is required to give a declaration that he is physically and mentally fit to discharge the contract obligation. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is a handicapped person and is almost bed ridden. 4. Standing counsel has obtained instructions in the matter. He has relied on the following tender condition, which reads thus:- “2. Contractors having annual turnover not less than the amount quoted in the tender notice according to income tax remitted for the last financial year/trail balance certified by a registered charted accountant, shall submit tenders in the enclosed Tender Form failing which they will not be considered”. 5. It is stated that the petitioner did not submit his income tax returns or trial balance certified by a registered Chartered Accountant and therefore his tender was summarily rejected. It is stated that thereafter the 2nd respondent was called for negotiation and the negotiated rate was accepted and thereupon Ext.P2 was issued. It is also submitted that the physical fitness of the 2nd respondent was examined by the Railway Doctor and that his physical fitness was certified. 6. Although the petitioner does not dispute that he did WPC No. 23529/11 :3 : not submit the income tax documents or trial balance sheet, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that contractors having annual turn over as specified in the tender condition alone need submit the documents mentioned therein and that those who do not satisfy those conditions can also submit their tender. 7. On a close reading of the tender condition extracted above, I am inclined to think that what is intended by incorporating this tender condition is that all the tenderers should satisfy the tender condition and I am not prepared to accept the interpretation attempted to be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If that be so, necessarily, the petitioner's tender was defective and if it is rejected, I cannot find any fault with the 1st respondent. Once the tender submitted by the petitioner is rejected, even if the offer made by him was for a higher amount, it was open to the respondents to consider the other tenderers. If in that process, the offer made by the 2nd respondent was accepted, there is nothing illegal in the said action. 8. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not physically fit, that also has been rebutted in WPC No. 23529/11 :4 : view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent that physical fitness has been certified by a Doctor of the Railways themselves. That apart, the physical fitness that is required of a tenderer is only for the discharge of tender obligations and nothing beyond that. 9. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp