IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5325 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED M.I., S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 51 YEARS, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, MANATH, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 021. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA STATE RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, TC 28/885, CSI BUILDING, PUTHENCHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. Addl. 3. O.P.PATHROSE, AGED 69, S/O. LATE PAILY, MANAGING PARTNER, O.P.PATHROSE & CMPANY, OMBALAYIL BUILDINGS KOLENCHERRY, PIN 682 311, ERNAKULAM. Addl.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.NO.3501/09 DT.11.3.2009. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH R3 BY ADV. SRI. K.S.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.5325 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that in response to Ext.P1, for the work of PMGSY 2006-07 (Phase VI) Package No.KR 02-11, in Vadavucode Block, Ernakulam District including maintenance for 5 years after construction, he had submitted his bids. Thereafter he filed this writ petition on 17.2.2009 stating that, he apprehends that bid submitted by him is likely to be rejected for the reason that he had not submitted two sets of technical bids and price bids. 2. In view of the above allegation in the writ petition, by order dated 4.3.2009, notice was ordered by special messenger. Today on instructions, the Government Pleader submits that the bid of the petitioner was rejected on 11.2.2009 for the reason that along with the bids submitted he did not submit Rs.50,000/-plus VAT at WP(c).No.5325/09 /2/ 12.5% being the costs of the tender documents including two copies. 3. The learned Government Pleader has also made available before me the tender notice dated 12.1.2009, where the work in question has been included at Sl.No.203. The tender notice itself provides that the costs of the tender documents including two copies is Rs.50,000/- plus VA at the rate of 12.5%. Even going by the averments in paragraph 6 of the writ Petition, the amount that was remitted by the petitioner was only Rs.28,125/- being the value of the tender document inclusive of the VAT. Evidently therefore the tender submitted by the petitioner was defective. If that be so, its rejection cannot be said to be faulty. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.5325/09 /2/