IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31944 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.K.GANGADHARAN MEMORIAL LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY, P.B.NO.15, FORT ROAD, THALASSERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.A.K.PRAKASH. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.2012, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B. NO.2012, KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682020 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.2012 KADVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020 BY ADV. SRI.THANKAPPAN, SC FOR GCDA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 31944/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF THE QUOTATIONS EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.1.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 01-09-2010 EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 02-09-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31944 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner they were awarded a contract for providing security guards for the respondents. The period of contract was upto to 31.8.2010 but however at the request of the respondents the work was continued beyond that period also. Subsequently GCDA invited tenders and in the tender dated 7.6.2011, the petitioner's tender was the lowest tender. 2. In this writ petition the complaints are two fold. One is that for the extended period, the petitioner should be paid at the rate as applicable to Casual Labour Roll rates fixed by the Public Works Department. The 2nd grievance is that their tender being the lowest, the tender should be finalized. 3. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted by the Standing Counsel that W.P.(C) No. 31944 OF 2011 :2 : though the petitioner's was the lowest tender as claimed, It is also submitted that despite giving extension of time they did not produce the required documents and that therefore, the GCDA has decided to cancel the tender and go for a fresh tender. 4. Respondents being the awarder of tender are always entitled to cancel the tender and to go for fresh tenders. If in the circumstances submitted by the respondents, they have gone for fresh tenders, petitioner can have no grievance. Therefore the directions sought for finalization of the tender cannot be granted. 5. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for the CLR Rates is concerned, that is a matter for the respondents to consider. According to the petitioner Ext.P4 representation made by them in this behalf is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent and therefore I direct the 3rd respondent to consider the claim in accordance with W.P.(C) No. 31944 OF 2011 :3 : law and a decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge