IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18417 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.JAYACHANDRAN,(TT NO.KL 23 B 9408), PARTHASARATHY FUELS,ANJILIMOODU,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT. SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, PANAMPILLY AVENUE,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER. ADV.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.18417 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted a tender for transporting petroleum products from the factory of the respondent to its various retail outlets. The same has not been accepted by the respondent. Therefore, The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) To declare that the refusal to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Indian Oil Corporation to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner and grant the rights sought for by him as the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated by the Corporation.” 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that similarly placed other tenderers have approached this Court and this Court consistently dismissed those writ petitions on the ground that the tenders were not accompanied by requisite documents. Therefore, he submits that this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. One of those judgments referred to by the counsel for the respondent is rendered by myself in W.P.(C).No.14075/2010, which reads thus; “The petitioner aspires to compete in a tender proceedings initiated by the respondent. But a clause in the tender conditions stands in his way. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition challenging the tender condition and seeking a direction to consider his tender also. w.p.c.18417/10 2 The very fact that the petitioner has challenged the tender condition shows that he is not qualified as per the tender conditions. Therefore, he can succeed in this writ petition only if that tender condition is declared as invalid. But, unfortunately for the petitioner, that tender condition was upheld by a learned Single Judge of this Court by Ext. P7 judgment in W.P(C) No. 36500/2009. I am in full agreement with that judgment. Although in Ext. P7 judgment, a concession was given to the petitioner in that judgment, the learned Judge himself had specifically made it clear that it will not be treated as a precedent. That being so, the petitioner has not made out a case for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” The tender condition referred to in the judgment relates to production of requisite documents relating to the trucks offered by the tenderers for transporting the petroleum products. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that required documents are already with the respondent and therefore, there is no point in finding fault with the petitioner for not producing the documents along with the tender. Admittedly, the petitioner had not produced the stipulated documents along with the tender. The tender notification specifically requires production of those documents along with the tender. Having not produced the same, the petitioner cannot now say that since documents are already with the respondent, the petitioner cannot be found fault with for non-production of the same. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.18417/10 3