IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24843 of 2010(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.RAVINDRAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, RELESH R.VILLA, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.BALAGOPALAN MR.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682036, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER. ADV. MR. E.K. NANDAKUMAR – SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.24843 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The respondent floated tenders for award of contract for transportation of petroleum products. As per the tender conditions, details of the tanker lorries proposed to be used by the petitioner were to be submitted along with the tender. The petitioner did not. The petitioner produced those details only subsequent to the last date fixed for submitting tenders. The petitioner submits that although this Court had held that delayed furnishing of the particulars would render the tender invalid, in view of the observation in Ext.P10 Division Bench decision nothing prevents the respondent from considering the petitioner's tender also. 2. This is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, who would submit that different yardsticks cannot be adopted for different tenderers, in so far as several tenders have been rejected for non-submission of details of W.P.(c)No.24843/10 2 vehicles along with the tenders, which have been upheld by this Court. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Admittedly, the petitioner did not furnish the details of the tanker lorries along with the tender. He furnished the same long after the last date fixed for submitting tenders was over. A learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the validity of such action of the respondent in refusing to entertain tenders which were not accompanied by the details of the tanker lorries offered by the tenderers. Following that judgment, I have also dismissed more than one writ petition. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench in Ext.P10 judgment. Of course, in that judgment, the Division Bench had added the following observation: “................However, taking into consideration that the appellant/petitioner now stands exclusively on an action of the company, it is clarified that this and the impugned judgments will not stand in the way of the company extending any benefit to the petitioner independent of the finality of the impugned judgment and this appellate judgment”. I am of opinion that, that does not give any right to the petitioner to seek a direction to the respondent to consider the W.P.(c)No.24843/10 3 petitioner’s tender, despite the petitioner not submitting the details of the tanker lorries along with the tender. As rightly pointed out by the standing counsel for the respondent, they cannot apply different yardsticks for different tenderers on the same question. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.24843/10 4