IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26362 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.G. VIJAYANATHA KURUP, PALLATH HOUSE VAZHUVADY, THAZHAKKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. IN THE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PATTOM, PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PATTOM, PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, COORDINATOR OF REGIONAL SEMEN BANK, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. ASSISTANT MANAGER REGIONAL SEMEN BANK, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PATTAMEL KADAVU, THAZHAKKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 6. C.J. THOMAS, CHERUPUZHPAM (LEA BHAVN), PULIYOOR, THONNEKKAD P.O. MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2-3 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26362 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Smt. Sumathy Dandapani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a goods carriage bearing Registration No.KL-31/7523. He had entered into a transport contract with the second respondent for the period from 1.8.2007 to 31.7.2009. Before the expiry of the said period, the fifth respondent issued Ext.P2 tender notice inviting tenders from owners of goods vehicle. The last date stipulated for submission of tenders was 10.7.2009. The petitioner and the sixth respondent submitted tenders. One among the tender conditions was that the vehicle should not be above two years old. When the tenders were opened, it was noticed that the petitioner had offered his existing vehicle which was registered on 31.7.2007. The sixth respondent did not then own a vehicle. Since the petitioner’s vehicle will be more than two years old by 1.8.2009 and the sixth respondent did not own a vehicle, the competent authority decided to cancel the tender and to retender the contract. Accordingly, a retender notification was issued. In that retender, W.P.(C) No. 26362/09 2 the petitioner did not participate. The sixth respondent had by then purchased a new vehicle. His tender was accepted and the contract was awarded to him. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award of the contract in favour of the sixth respondent. He challenges the award of the contract in favour of the sixth respondent mainly on the ground that the vehicle offered by the sixth respondent does not fulfill the requirements of Ext.P5 tender notice. The petitioner contends that the platform of the vehicle should have a minimum floor area of 5.5 sq. mts. and that the platform of the vehicle offered by the sixth respondent has a floor area of only 4.75 sq.m. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 has filed a statement. In the statement it is contended that though in Exts.P2 and P5 tender notices it had been stipulated that the vehicle should have a platform of 5.5 sq.m. the said stipulation is an incorrect one and that instead of using the word “approximately” the word “minimum” was used in the tender notice. Reference is made to para 2 of the conditions forming part of Ext.P3 agreement entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent for period prior to 1.8.2009. It is contended that the petitioner who did not participate in the second tender and whose vehicle was more than two years old as on 1.8.2009, cannot successfully assail the award the contract to the sixth respondent. W.P.(C) No. 26362/09 3 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is clear from Ext.P3 that the stipulation is that the vehicle should have an approximate floor space of 5.5 sq.m. and not a minimum floor space of 5.5 sq.m., as set out in the tender notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the sixth respondent does not own a vehicle which does not meet the said stipulation. The petitioner did not participate in the tender pursuant to Ext.P5 tender notice. The vehicle offered by him in the first tender was also more than two years old as on 1.8.2009. On the terms of the tender notice, he was ineligible for award of the contract. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the award of the contract in favour of the sixth respondent. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps