IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32645 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UMMER FAROOK.E.P., EKKAR PALLI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI-682 555. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD SRI.V.D.BALAKRISHNA KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI-682 555. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PORT SHIPPING AND AVIATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI-682 555. 3. PORT ASSISTANT, KAVARATHI ISLAND, TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI-682 555. 4. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PORT SHIPPING AND AVIATION, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1-3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).32645/11 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE F.NO.9/1/2009 PART (OPB) DATED 14.10.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 28.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE F.NO.9/1/2011-PART (OPB) DATED 31.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.11.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32645/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is the tender notice issued by the respondents for the work of loading, unloading, stevedoring etc., at Kavarathi, for a period of two years. Petitioner responded to Ext.P1 and his tender was the lowest. The tender was accepted and he was issued Ext.P2 work order dated 28.2.2010. Accordingly, he is entitled to continue upto 27.2.2012. Apparently, to make alternate arrangements, on expiry of the period of Ext.P2, Ext.P3 tender notice was issued and the petitioner also participated in the tender. Subsequently, petitioner made Ext.P4 representation to the respondents seeking extension of the contract period and in this writ petition, he complains of non consideration of Ext.P4. The representation, according to the petitioner, has been made on the strength of clause 21 of Ext.P2 enabling extension of the contract for one more year. 2. On behalf of the respondents, instructions have been obtained and it is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P3, tenders were received from several parties including the petitioner. The tenders W.P.(C).32645/11 2 were received and opened on 30.4.2011. It is also submitted that further action for finalistion of the tender is being continued. It is therefore submitted that respondents are unwilling for renewal in terms of clause 21 which is possible only on mutual agreement. 3. Although the petitioner could have requested for extension of the contract period in view of clause 21 of Ext.P2, evidently the conduct of the respondents discloses that they are unwilling for renewal of the contract of the petitioner. In such circumstances, I see no reason why the respondents should be called upon to take decision on Ext.P4 made by the petitioner. Writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs