IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30728 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.S.SWAMINATHAN, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, CHALLIYIL HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA P.W.D., ROADS AND BRIDGES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA P.W.D., NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA P.W.D., BUILDINGS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. WP(C).No. 30728 of 2009 :: 2 :: 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA P.W.D., ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. M.P.JOLLY, MELATH HOUSE, PAZAMTHOTTAM, ALUVA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).30728/2009 ....................... Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 tender notice dated 12.6.2009, the 6th respondent invited tenders from registered 'A' class contractors. As per the tender notice, the petitioner submitted Pre-qualification bid and price bid. In paragraph 9.4 of the tender conditions it is stipulated that incomplete applications are liable to be rejected. In paragraph 9.14 (g) it is stipulated that the profit and loss statements, balance sheets and auditor's report for the past five years should be produced along with the estimated financial projection for the next two years. The petitioner submitted the profit and loss statements and balance sheets for only three years. On that ground, he was disqualified. The petitioner contends, relying on the proforma in schedule B to the pre-qualification application that only three years' profit and loss statements have to be produced. He contends that in such circumstances, the decision to disqualify him is arbitrary and is intended to favour the sole person who was pre-qualified. 2. I have considered the submission made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned W.P.(C).30728/09 2 Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. Paragraph 9.14(g) of Ext.P2 tender conditions reads as follows:- “Reports on the financial standing of the tenderer of such party to a joint ventures including profit and loss statements balance sheets and auditor's for the past five years, on estimated financial projection for the next two years and on authority from the tenderer (or authorized representative of a joint venture) to seek reference from the tenderers bankers.” 3. Paragraph 9.4 reads as follows:- “Incomplete offers are liable to be rejected.” 4. Though in Schedule B Financial Statement in the Pre- qualification application against item No.3 reference is only to the audited balance sheets and profit and loss statement for the past three years, it is evident from column 5 thereof that the bidder is bound to furnish details of the works executed by him for the past five years. In the light of the stipulation in paragraph 9.14(g) and even in Schedule B appended to the W.P.(C).30728/09 3 Pre-qualification application, I am of the opinion that the petitioner who did not furnish the profit and loss statement and audited balance sheets for the past five years, was liable to be disqualified. The petitioner's tender, which did not satisfy the tender conditions, was, in my opinion, liable to be rejected. I therefore, find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if his tender was defective, he ought to have been afforded an opportunity to cure the defect. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs