IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20949 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MERCY RAJU, MAPRANATHU HOUSE, VARANDRAPPALLY, VALLIKUNNU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARATH PETROLEUM, CORPORATION LTD., CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLAD ESTATE, MUMBAI. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-2 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20949 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P1 notification was issued by the 1st respondent inviting tenders from the owners of tanker lorries for transporting petroleum products with effect from 1.5.2009 for a period of two years. Tenders were opened on 22.4.2009. The petitioners was not called for further negotiations and hence this writ petition praying for the following reliefs: i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents permitting the petitioner for the negotiations as per Ext.P1 to be conducted on 8.7.2009 onwards; ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order stay the finalisation of the tenders submitted as per Ext.P1; iii) To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice. W.P.(C).No.20949 of 2009 :: 2 :: 2. It is affirmed in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner was a contractor earlier and proceedings are pending against him for non- performance of the contract, pursuant to a requisition made by the respondents, during the operation of the contract for the previous year. In these circumstances, the respondents have formed an opinion that the petitioner cannot be trusted for award of a contract for a subsequent period. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. Subject to the decision to be taken by the respondents, the petitioner shall be considered for the contracts in future. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge