IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3083 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- M.M.NOOHU, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 58 YEARS, T.C. 8/802, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE - 'JALA BHAVAN', VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. A.SOFIA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD & GL), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 4. STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LIMITED (SILK), REGISTERED OFFICE AT ATHANI P.O., SILK NAGAR, TRICHUR - 680 771, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R2 BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 3083 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated to be aggrieved of the cancellation of the tender with regard to lifting of scrap from the second respondent by issuing Ext.P4, which according to the petitioner, is only by virtue of an after-thought and to eliminate the petitioner from the arena and award the same to the 4th respondent. 2. The case as projected in the writ petition is that the respondent, with intent to award the contract to the fourth respondent, has chosen to issue Ext.P3, much after the finalization of the proceedings, on finding that petitioner was eligible to have the work awarded which however is sought to be disputed from the part of the respondent. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent, with reference to the statement filed before this Court submits that the petitioner has only made some wild allegations in the writ petition without any regard to the actual Wpc 3083/2011 2 facts and figures. With regard to the contentions of the petitioner as to the cancellation of tender, reliance is placed on clause No.16 of the special conditions of tender; whereby such absolute right is conferred upon the second respondent for cancelling the tender, without assigning any reason. The learned standing counsel submits that the tender proceedings were considered by the tender committee, who found that while notifying the tender, the actual quantity of the scrap that was to be lifted was not quantified or clarified and it was in the said circumstance, that the tender was decided to be cancelled with the intention to have the retender after notifying the stock as revealed from Ext.R2(h) decision taken by the tender committee. The relevant files with regard to the issue involved are also placed for consideration before this Court, asserting that everything has been done in quite a transparent manner. 4. The version of the second respondent is that, at the time of opening the tender, it was revealed that all the tenders submitted by the parties concerned, except the 4th respondent were defective in one way or the other. Regarding the alleged plea of malafides, the learned standing counsel submits that the same is absolutely incorrect and devoid of any merit or Wpc 3083/2011 3 bonafides, for the reason that, since all the other tenders including that of the petitioner, but for the tender submitted by 4th respondent were found defective, the matter could have been finalized by the second respondent then and there by awarding the tender in favour of 4th respondent. As a matter of fact, the second respondent decided to give an opportunity to all parties concerned for curing the defects and it was accordingly, that the petitioner was also given such a chance and the matter was considered thereafter. It is in the course of the above proceedings, that the non quantification of the scrap was taken note of, leading to Ext.R2(h) and in turn Ext.P4. 5. It is further pointed out that the petitioner can also participate in the retender as and when the same is notified. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the steps taken by second respondent are not liable to be interfered in any manner. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, however making it clear that, as and when retender is notified, the petitioner also will be free to take part in the tender proceedings. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk