IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9734 OF 2008(H) PETITIONER: SRI.P.VIJAYAN, S/O.PAPPY, AGED 63 YEARS, CONTRACTOR (VEDI VAZHIPADU), VAIKOM MAHADEVA TEMPLE, RESIDING AT "PALAKKATTU", PALLIPPURATHUSSERY P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE ASST. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, VAIKOM. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.R.RUBY, PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, RAMAPURAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 9734/2008 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 19.1.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 3.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE ADM, KOTTAYAM IN FORM NO. 23 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF TE AUCTION NOTICE (NOT LEGIBLE) SUPPLIED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHEREIN RELEVANT PORTION MADE READABLE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.3.2008 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EARLIER BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVASWOM OMBUDSMAN RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 9734 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner alleges that the tender submitted by the 4th respondent is in violation of the tender condition since he did not possess a proper licence under the Explosive Act. But according to the petitioner, he came to know the fact that the 4th respondent did not possess valid licence only on the day on which the tender was opened. No complaint, however, was made by him to the Devaswom Board; rather straight away filed this writ petition. However, nothing prevented us from considering this writ petition. 2. Though the petitioner filed Ext.P5 before the Commissioner, that was only much after the tender was opened. Anyway, delay on the part of the petitioner need not prevent us from considering the matter on merits, if as a matter of fact, the tender submitted by the successful bidder is in any way, in violation of the conditions. 3. Admittedly, tender conditions stipulates that the tenderer should possess a valid licence under the Explosive Act. No doubt the 4th respondent did not possess a valid licence at the time when he submitted WP(C) 9734/2008 :2: his application. According to him, only when he becomes a successful bidder he need to apply. Petitioner was a bidder for the previous year and therefore, he had a valid licence. So however, he also did not, as on today, possess any renewed licence in his favour. Since the conduct and storage of explosive items are involved in the matter of execution of the contract, necessarily, the successful bidder should possess a valid licence under the provisions of the Explosive Act. Therefore, it would be sufficient if the tender condition mentions that the successful bidder should produce a valid licence within a period of ten days in case of acceptance of his tender. However, contrary to that in the present tender, it is stipulated that the tenderer should have a valid licence. In such circumstances, there is a technical violation of the tender condition. The option available to us in this regard is to direct the Board to re-tender the matter since similarly situated persons who had no opportunity to apply must be given an equal opportunity. We do so. 4. Since the 4th respondent has already deposited the amount, he has got two options- either he can seek return of the amount or the amount may be retained with the Devaswom and in case he becomes the successful bidder based on the re-tender, the said amount can be adjusted towards the amount to be paid by him. WP(C) 9734/2008 :3: 5. We may however, observe that in the matter of conducting vedi vazhipadu, since the tender is for one year, necessary steps for conducting the auction be taken sufficiently in advance so that immediately on the expiry of the period of licence, so that vedi vazhipadu could be continuously conducted in the temple without any default. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-