IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6912 of 2009(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- M/S.CONCORD CONSTRUCTIONS, KALLATRA COMPOUND,RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOTTACHERRY,KANHANGAD, REP.BY ITS PARTNER IBRAHIM KALLATRA. BY ADV. SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED M.S SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA M.S RESPONDENT : ------------------------ THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY,NORTH CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR,PWD COMPLEX,KOZHIKODE. BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6912 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Exhibit P1 is the notification issued by the respondent inviting tender for the work of improvement of Riding quality in K.M. 87/00 to 99/00 on NH 213. In response to Exhibit P1, among others, the petitioner also submitted their bid. In this writ petition, the petitioner submits that without intimating anything about the bid that they had submitted, the respondent is proceeding to award the work. It is on that allegation, this writ petition has been filed, praying inter alia, to direct that their bid be considered. 2. Learned Government pleader on instruction submits that in terms of the tender conditions, the bidder was required to submit details of liquid assets or availability of credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 1.34 Crores. Referring the financial report annexed to Exhibit P2, the tender submitted by the petitioner, it is stated that the credit facility available to the petitioner was only to the extent of Rs.1.20 Crores. Reference is also made to the bank certificate issued by the federal bank on 19/01/2007, W.P.(C) No. 6912 / 2009 2 it is pointed out that it only certifies their willingness to provide credit facilities to the extent of Rs.1.20 Crores. It is stated that bid submitted by the petitioner was therefore defective in as much as credit facility to the extent of Rs. 1.34 Crores was not furnished by the petitioner. For this reason, according to the respondent, technical bid was rejected. It is also submitted that the price bid was opened on 27/02/2009. 3. A perusal of the tender document and the minutes of the Evaluation committee held on 22/07/2007 produced by the learned Government pleader shows that in terms of tender conditions, liquid assets or availability of credit facilities must have been to the tune of Rs.1.34 Crores. This factual position is not disputed by the petitioner also. The fact that amount which the petitioner produced was only to the tune of Rs.1.20 Crores is not in dispute. However, the short fall is sought to be explained by the petitioner contending that this has been the result of a mistake that was committed at their office. Petitioner referred to Exhibits P3 and P4 to impress that they are experienced contractor with sufficient resources, who can undertake the work. W.P.(C) No. 6912 / 2009 3 Irrespective of capabilities of the petitioner about which this Court need not decide, fact remains that Exhibit P2 tender submitted by the petitioner in response to the tender notified in Exhibit P1 did not satisfy the conditions of the tender. If that be the admitted factual position, then the petitioner could not have been Pre-qualified. Therefore, decision of the respondent rejecting the petitioner's technical bid cannot be faulted. Hence, this Court will not be justified in entertaining the writ petition. Writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm