IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11579 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ D.BERNAD,THOTTATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, R.C.THERUVU, BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DIRECTOR, MUSEUM AND ZOOS, DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUM AND ZOOS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. S. THULASEEDHARAN, PATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, MENON MARKET, PETTAH.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 11579 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, informing the petitioner that in view of the fact that the petitioner did not produce the solvency certificate in his own name, 1st respondent is not in a position to consider the tender submitted by him. 2. Ext.P1 is the tender notice invited by the 1st respondent for the supply of dietary articles to the Department of Museum and Zoos, Thiruvananthapuram for the period 01/04/2009 to 31/3/2010. One of the documents which was to be submitted along with the tender is the solvency certificate for 10% of the quoted amount. 3. Even going by the pleadings in this writ petition, Ext.P4 is the solvency certificate that was produced by the petitioner, which is in relation to his brother. Although the brother has given Ext.P5 consent deed, still fact remains that the solvency certificate is not that of the tenderer himself. WPC 11579 /09 :2 : 4. Going by the relevant clause of Ext.P1, the tender in my view, was a defective one. If that be so, Ext.P6 cannot be faulted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp