IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3030 of 2010(C) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- REMANI S.NAIR, MANCHERY HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY MR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.M.CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, ADVOCATE. MR.A.RAJASIMHAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CENTRAL REGION), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI-682 011. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY MR.M.DINESH, SC, KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3030 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has submitted a tender pursuant to Exhibit P2 tender notice issued by the 3rd respondent. There was another notification also in relation to laying of pipes at Payipra and Nellikuzhy panchayath and to Eramalloor-Thrikkeriyoor as per tender No.30/2009-10. The last date for submission of both the tenders was 24.11.2009 and the petitioner submitted tenders in response to both the notifications on time. 2. On the date of opening of the tenders, the tenders submitted by the petitioner and one Shaji K.Mathew were not opened. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Exhibit P5 representation before the 2nd respondent and the other tenderer had also submitted a representation. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her tender was much lower than that of other tenderers. In W.P.(C) No.1700/2010 filed by Sri.Shaji K.Mathew, this Court passed Exhibit P6 W.P.(C) No.3030/2010 2 judgment directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider and pass orders on the representations, and it is stated that pursuant to that his tender was opened as directed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner herein is seeking for a similar relief. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two weeks, if the tenders have not been opened so far. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp Heard the parties. The operative portion of the Judgment will be modified as follows: There will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two weeks after the opening of the two tenders submitted by the petitioner and before finalisation of the tenders submitted by others also. The Judgment will be W.P.(C) No.3030/2010 3 modified to that extent. A revised certified copy of the Judgment will be issued to the petitioner. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) 2nd February, 2010 ms