IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30726 of 2008(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- P.P.ABDUL SALIM, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE IBRAHIM, PALLIYILAPEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (NATIONAL HIGHWAY), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NORTH ZONE, CALICUT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.30726 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Tenders were floated by the 2nd respondent inviting bids in relation to the collection of toll from Arapuzha Bridge in N.H.47 at Kozhikode byepass for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2011. One of the conditions stipulated in this regard is the submission of a solvency certificate for Rs.15 lakhs. The tender forms are to be issued from 17.10.2008 to 24.10.2008. Last date of submission of the same is 29.10.2008 by 4 p.m. The requirement of a solvency certificate is over and above the EMD to the tune of Rs.9,40,000/- The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the stipulation relating the submission of a solvency certificate. According to the petitioner, all other tenders of a like nature require only a Bank Guarantee. Further, the time stipulated for obtaining a solvency certificate is too short, it is contended. On the request made by this court to the W.P ( C) No.30726 of 2008 2 Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondent as to whether they would be willing to accept a bank guarantee in lieu of solvency certificate, the Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that what is required by the tender norms is only a solvency certificate and not a bank guarantee. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. Solvency Certificate for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs is obviously a guarantee for due performance of the contract. No doubt, the bank guarantee is an adequate substitute for a solvency certificate. I would have considered the reasonableness of the stipulation in the tender notification that only a solvency certificate can be accepted coupled with the refusal on the part of the respondents to accept bank guarantee as an ample substitute, had the petitioner approached this Court earlier. Exhibit P1 tender notification was issued on 10.9.2008 and the writ petition was filed only on 17.10.2008. Even if I accept the contention of the petitioner, there is inadequate W.P ( C) No.30726 of 2008 3 time left for the respondents to re-notify that a bank guarantee will be a substitute for a solvency certificate, before 24.10.2008 so as to enable other prospective tenderers also to participate in the tender. It is quite possible that a prospective tender might have been deferred by the condition of a solvency certificate and the absence of stipulation regarding a substitute in the tender notification. If that be so, the acceptance of the petitioner’s contentions at this stage would result in the petitioner stealing a march over other prospective tenderers only for the reason that they have not chosen to approach this Court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.30726 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.30726 of 2008 5