IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 320 of 2009(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6912/2009 Dated 04/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- M/S.CONCORD CONSTRUCTIONS, KALLATRA COMPOUND, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOTTACHERRY, KANHANGAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER IBRAHIM KALLATRA. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY, NORTH CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR, PWD COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON 27/03/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.320 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 6912 OF 2009 (H) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 O R D E R The writ petitioner has filed this review petition. 2. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 4.3.2009. Against the judgment, they had filed WA No.584/09, which was dismissed as withdrawn by judgment dated 12/3/2009, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the judgment and accordingly the review petition is filed. 3. In the judgment under review, the writ petition was dismissed upholding the contention of the respondent that the tender submitted by the petitioner was defective for the reason that the credit facilities offered by the petitioner was only to the extent of Rs.1.20 crores as against the tender condition requiring availability of credit facilities to the extend of Rs.1.34 crores. 4. In this review petition, relying on Annexure 1, Appendix to the Instruction to Bidders (ITB) and Ext.P2, petitioner submits that the bid submitted by them was a valid one satisfying the tender conditions. The relevant tender condition reads as follows: RP No.320/09 in WPC No.6912/09 :2 : “Liquid assets and/or availability of credit facilities is Rs.1.34 crores(Rupees One point Three four crore)” 5. Referring to Ext.P2, Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that under the clause requiring, “Evidence of access to financial resources to meet the qualification requirements, cash in hand, lines of credit, etc list them below and attach copies of support documents”, as own resources, petitioner has shown Rs.150 lakhs. It is stated that once “resources” of Rs.150 lakhs was shown, that satisfies the requirement of “liquid assets” of Rs.134 lakhs and therefore the conclusion of the respondents that the tender submitted by the petitioner was defective is incorrect. 6. When this Court asked the counsel for the petitioner what were the supporting documents attached by them as required in the above tender condition, reference was made to the details available in the schedule forming part of the balance sheet as on 31/3/2008. Senior Counsel also referred to Annexure 3 Bank Certificate dated 4/3/2009, which was submitted by them under cover of Annexure 3 (a) dated 5.3.2009. 7. First of all, the tender condition referred to by the counsel for the petitioner requires “liquid assets” to the tune of RP No.320/09 in WPC No.6912/09 :3 : Rs.134 lakhs. The expression “liquid assets” means assets readily realisable property, such as coins, notes and other high class securities that are readily convertible into cash. As per Black's Law Dictionary relied on by the petitioner, liquid assets mean assets readily convertible into cash. The petitioner's own declaration in the tender document is that they have resources worth Rs.150 lakhs. Resources are money or any property that can be converted to meet needs, means of raising money or supplies or available means or capability of any kind. The above is the meaning given to the expression “Resources” in the Black's Law Dictionary relied on by the petitioner. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the expression “liquid assets” and “resources”. Thus, even accepting that they have resources as claimed, it cannot be accepted as equivalent to having liquid assets worth Rs.150 lakhs. However, since the petitioner was referring to deposits of Rs.3,30,18,640/- as shown in the balance sheet as on 31/3/2008, it could be taken as liquid asset. However, the balance sheet relied on by the petitioner is as on 31/3/2008, whereas it is admitted by the petitioner that the tender was submitted by them on 20/1/2009 and that the bids were opened RP No.320/09 in WPC No.6912/09 :4 : in February, 2009. Therefore, when the tender was submitted by the petitioner or their technical bid was assessed by the respondent, the position as on that date alone could have been relevant and the position as reflected in the balance sheet as on 31/3/2008 is irrelevant. Nothing has been placed on record to show that they have liquid assets to the extent required at the relevant date. If that be the position, I cannot find fault with the respondent. 8. In so far as Annexure 3 Bank Certificate, where the Federal Bank have agreed to provide credit facilities to the extent of Rs.150 lakhs is concerned, that document itself is dated 4/3/2009, which is much after even the opening of price bid, which took place on 27/2/2009. Therefore, this document also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 9. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there is any error in the judgment warranting its review. Review petition fails and therefore will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp