IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9154 of 2009(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.H.LATHEEF, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.HASSAINAR, RESIDING AT 12/1216, KALATHIL HOUSE, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PWD (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD (NATIONAL HIWAYS) CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDINGS, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9154 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is against Ext.P2, a tender notice published by the respondents inviting tenders for collection of toll at the Kumbalam-Aroor Bridge. 2. Two contentions are raised. First was that the publication of Ext.P2 notification was inadequate and according to the petitioner, the notice was published only in Madhyamam Daily. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that in addition to Madhyamam Daily, tender notice was published in Kerala Koumudhi Daily and New Indian Express Daily. This, therefore shows that the submission made by the petitioner is factually incorrect. 4. Then, it was contended that the condition for prequalification specified in Ext.P2 was arbitrary. Counsel submits that the experience prescribed in Ext.P2 was that the prospective tenderer should have undertaken a similar work, the value of which is Rs.66,43,400/- in any one year within the WPC 9154/09 :2 : immediately preceding 7 years. 5. In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the above prescription of experience. When a tender is invited, it is up to the awarding authority to decide what are the prequalification conditions to be incorporated in the tender notice and unless there is anything malafide or arbitrary, this Court will not be justified in interfering with such tender conditions. Petitioner has not made out any such grounds warranting interference with Ext.P2. Further, a tender condition such as this, is intended to have response from experienced and capable tenderers. Therefore, there is nothing invalid with this condition either. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp