IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 176 of 2011(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEW GLORY ORTHOPAEDICS, VIII/408-1, IDA, KEENPURAM, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.S.MOHAMMAD. BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, STORES PURCHASE (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRONIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KELTRON), VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 011. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI-682 011. ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.176 OF 2011(V) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P4, a tender notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Petitioner also seeks to quash Ext.P6 Government Order issued exempting the requirement of open tender in terms of Exts.P8 and P9. There is a further prayer to direct the respondents to award the contract for manufacture and supply of equipments and devices for disabled persons and distribution through Local Self Government Institutions by recourse to open tender formalities. 2. The main attack of the petitioner is against Ext.P6 Government Order which dispensed with the tender requirements. This contention is raised mainly on the ground that in terms of Exts.P8 and P9, normally only through open tender system goods can be procured from sources including Public Sector undertakings. According to the petitioner, exemption is permissible only in situations which are contemplated in Ext.P9. It is his case that none of the three situations provided in Ext.P9 are available for issuing an order in the nature of Ext.P6. It is stated that if Ext.P6 is bad Ext.P4 tender issued by the 2nd respondent on WPC.No.176 /2011 :2 : the strength of Ext.P6 is also equally bad. It is on this basis, the aforesaid reliefs are sought. 2. However, Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent now points out that Ext.P6 is basically a continuation of Ext.P2 which was issued for previous year. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.P6, when Ext.P4 tender was issued responses were received from several parties including the petitioner. It is stated that after submitting tender, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation seeking modification of the terms of supply. It is stated that therefore excluding the tender submitted by the petitioner, the other tenders received were processed and on 1.9.2010 the tender was awarded to the Sai Rehabilitation, Ernakulam and that the EMD submitted by the petitioner was returned on 11.10.2010. Now that, the contract has been concluded as above, and as the successful tenderer is not a party to this writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the reason that any such order will be to the prejudice of the successful tenderer. Therefore, this writ petition is closed leaving open the contentions of the petitioner. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WPC.No.176 /2011 :3 :