IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25583 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.M.KOYA,S/O.KUNHIKOYA,NOORI MASKARA, PUTHIYANGADI PO, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/SUPERINTENDENT , GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL,MANJERI 676 121. 2. SUPERINTENDENT ,GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MANJERI 676 121. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25583/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 12/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE DEPOSTIT OF EARNEST MONEY OF RS.10,000/- ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE RE-TENDER NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/9/2011 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25583 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Second respondent had invited tender for conducting Hospital Development Society Canteen for the period from 1/9/2011 to 31/8/2012. According to the petitioner, he had submitted his tender and was the highest bidder. 2. In this writ petition, he is aggrieved by the re-tender notice issued by the 2nd respondent evidenced by Ext.P3. Petitioner contends that he having been found to be the highest bidder, his offer ought to have been confirmed and that the decision of the authorities to cancel the tender and to invite fresh tender is illegal. 3. In my view, there is no substance in the contention. Once the tender is issued and if according to the authorities, response received is inadequate for any reason whatsoever, the authorities are entitled to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders. Unless such decision is proved to be tainted by malafides, this Court will not be justified in interfering with such decision. In this case, there is no such material. Therefore, the WPC No. 25583/11 :2 : relief sought cannot be granted. 4. Needless to say that if any amount has been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the tender submitted by him, he is entitled to have it refunded and it will be open to the petitioner to approach the authorities for the said purpose. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp