IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 563 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) 4935/09 AND THE ORDER IN RP.232/2009 Dated 27/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- M/S.EXPANSE INDIA BUILDCON PVT.LTD., KUDHROLI WHILE HOUSE, 5TH MILE, CHENGALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C.M.ABDUL KHADER. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT.OF HARBOUR ENGINEERING, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING (NORTH CIRCLE) CHAKKAROTHUKULAM, ERANHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-6. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS FOR R4. SR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.563 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd March, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant/petitioner is aggrieved since the appellant is not issued a tender form for participating in the work tendered as per Ext.P1. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner is not qualified to participate in the tender since the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements. Placing heavy reliance on Annexure B norms for evaluation of pre-qualification tenders for State works, it is submitted that the petitioner is qualified. Reference is invited to paragraph 1(b), which reads as follows :- “The applicant should have satisfactorily completed during the last 5 years at least one work of similar nature and having a magnitude of 40% (at current prices) of the value of the work, or he should be satisfactorily executing at present, at least one work of similar nature and having completed billing not less than 40% of the value of the work for which pre-qualification is invited.” The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and hence the appeal. WA NO.563/09 2 2. We directed the learned Government Pleader to get instruction as to whether the petitioner has been paid 40% of the bill amount which comes to Rs.7,48,00,000/-. On instruction, it is submitted that only around Rs.4,14,00,000/- has been disbursed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is not the billing that is material, but the quantum of work that is material. Inviting reference to Ext.P3 experience certificate and other materials, it is submitted that the appellant has completed more than 75% of the work, and hence the billing is not what is relevant. 3. We are afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated. It is now settled law that it is not for the court to substitute its own views on the tender conditions. Those are all matters for the tenderer to decide and the court has only to see whether the procedure as per the tender already invited has been followed. It is not in serious dispute that the appellant has not received 40% of the bill amount of the work, which is sought to be relied on. The contention is that more than 40% of the work has been done. Since the requirement under the tender WA NO.563/09 3 condition is not merely the execution of the work, but the completed billing of the work executed to the extent of 40%, and since the same is not satisfied by the appellant, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. I.A.Nos.227/09, 251/09 & 253/09 : Dismissed. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice. KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge. tgs S.R.BANNURMATH, C. J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.563 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 23rd March, 2009.