IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10280 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- K.HAMZA, S/O. K.MOHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, BHARATH STEEL AGENCIES, CHERUVANNOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENT: --------------- MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 10280/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 4.12.06. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.1.07. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 10280 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner participated in tender cum auction for sale of scrap materials at various workshops of the Kerala Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner took part respect of four depots. Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit. As per tender conditions, the petitioner was required to quote the entire lot in respect of item No.41, which comprised of GI pipes. According to the petitioner, the petitioner by mistake quoted Rs.12,666/- for 100 Kg whereas the lot consisted of 500 Kgs. Thereafter the petitioner filed Exts.P1and P2 representations before the respondent requesting him either to permit the petitioner to reduce 20% of the amount quoted or to refund the EMD. According to the petitioner, since it was purely by mistake, the petitioner should not be penalised by withholding the EMD. He now seeks a direction to the respondents to release the EMD. However, for the present, he would be satisfied with a direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P1 WPC : 10280/07 -:2:- and P2 representations. After having heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also, I am of opinion that, it is only appropriate that the respondent considers and passes orders on Exts.P1 and P2 expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb