IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2560 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28791/2009 Dated 28/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ C. ASHOKAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, ASHOKAN BHAVANAM, PONMALA.P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.P.GOPINATHA MENON ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD. (A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) MINERALS SEPARATION UNIT, KOVILTHOTTAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. M/S. T.K. CONSTRUCTIONS, ARAMAN, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 3. M/S. DEEPTHI TRANSPORTATION, KARITHURA, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.ANAND THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2560 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the rejection of the appellant's tender at the pre-qualification stage, so far as one of the items tendered is concerned, the appellant/petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Going into the details of the facts, it is to be noted that the first respondent had issued Ext.P1 notification inviting tenders for collection and transportation of sand using mechanised tippers (rear dump trucks) and delivery at the Mineral Separation Unit, from experienced contractors. It is alleged by the appellant that as per the requirement though he offered his tender with all necessary datas supported by the documentary evidence, the respondents have illegally rejected his tender at the pre-qualification stage. 3. Noting the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge found that there were non compliance of two clauses or requirements by the appellant/petitioner, namely that the annual W.A.No.2560 of 2009. - 2 - turnover was less than the required and non production of solvency certificate as required for a minimum of Rs.25 lakhs not properly furnished, and as such rejected the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. At the outset, it is to be noted that acceptance or rejection of tender is a contractual workout and normally this Court will not interfere with the process unless mala fides or illegality in rejection or acceptance is established. The law in this regard is well settled from the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489]. 5. From the impugned judgment it is seen that the learned Single Judge was in fact, prima facie, satisfied himself as to the deficiencies in the tender submitted by the appellant and in our view, rightly refused to interfere with the decision of the respondents to disqualify the appellant at the pre- qualification stage itself. It is also brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent that the work has already commenced. W.A.No.2560 of 2009. - 3 - 6. Looking at the case from any angle, we find absolutely no illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, especially in the absence of any allegation of mala fides against the respondents. Hence upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge we dismiss the writ appeal. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns/vku.