IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 174 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1044/2009 Dated 19/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- A. IBRAHIM KUTTY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, VALIYATH HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA PO., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691587. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS SMT.MARYKUTTY BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEERS COMMITTEE FOR PRE-QUALIFICATION OF CONTRACTORS REP. BY ITS CONVENER AND CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM, 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PROJECT CIRCLE, KANNUR-678002. ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED : 4. M/S.RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., RAMKY HOUSE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 82, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS). (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.1.2009 IN I.A.68/09). ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR ADDL.R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJKUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.174 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 6th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers :- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the second respondent calling for the records of the case leading upto Ext.P5 and quash Ext.P4 and all other proceedings and steps pursuant to the same, calculated to exclude consideration of the price bid of the petitioner for the work in Ext.P1. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or direction, or order to the second respondent requiring to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5, to modify Ext.P4, in accordance with Ext.P2, to pre-qualify the petitioner also to participate in the price bid for the work in Ext.P1, and to keep in abeyance all further steps for opening of the price bids and award of contract till disposal of Ext.P5 to allow him to participate in the price bid for the work and to obtain the contract in the event of his price bid becoming the lowest. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the respondents requiring to forebear from proceeding any further under and pursuant to Ext.P4 for the opening price bids for the work in Ext.P1 and award of contract, till disposal of Ext.P5, to pre-qualify the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P2, for allowing him also to participate in the price bid for the work for award of the contract. (iv) Declare that the petitioner is duly pre-qualified for WA NO.174/09 2 participation in the price bid for the work in Ext.P1 in accordance with Ext.P2 and that he is entitled to award of the contract for the work in Ext.P1 in the event of his price bid becomes the lowest amongst the pre-qualified bidders and direct the respondents to award the contract to him”. 2. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that since the petitioner has not produced the audited balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 along with the tender and since the same was produced only on 8.1.2009, the bid itself was defective, and hence the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that even without the balance sheet for one year, he was otherwise qualified. It is further submitted that in any case, he should have been given another opportunity and thus he has submitted Ext.P5 representation. On the contrary, learned Special Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is disqualified otherwise also. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant submits that this court need not go into the various disputed aspects involved in the case at this stage, since the appellant will be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 after affording an WA NO.174/09 3 opportunity for hearing to the appellant and all contentions on both sides can be left open. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the process is getting delayed, and since this is a time bound work, any further delay would be detrimental to the interests of the State. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he can present himself before the second respondent any day next week. Learned Government Pleader, on ascertaining the convenience of the second respondent submits that the earliest possible date for the second respondent to meet is on 13.2.2009. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, and leaving the contentions of both sides open, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the writ petition, directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity for hearing to the appellant. The appellant will present himself before the second respondent at 11 a.m. on 13.2.2009. The finalization of the award of contract will be only after passing orders on Ext.P5. The order passed on WA NO.174/09 4 Ext.P5 shall be communicated to the appellant/petitioner. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.174 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 6th February, 2009.