IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37478 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS, MANNAETH HOUSE, KSHARATH LANE, VIYYOOR THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PRAMOD P. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL XAVIER SRI.M.SHAHEED AHMAD SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THRISSUR - 686605 ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37478/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS DT 8.9.2009 AND 9/9/2009 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA AND BUISNESS LINE DAILIES. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS DT 26.9.2009 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA AND BUSINESS LINE DAILIES. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE B ID DOCUMENT SUPPLIED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 5.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PRE-BID MEETING HELD ON 13/10/2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 8.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DT 24.11.2009 OF THE BOT CELL. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 11.12.2009 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GUIDELINES GO (MS) NO.298/2004/LSGD DT 13.10.2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37478 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a contractor, submitted his bid in response to a notice inviting bids published by the 2nd respondent Municipality for private sector participation in the implementation, construction, operation and maintenance of E.K.Nayanar Memorial Bus Terminal Complex at Kunnamkulam, Thrissur. He was the only bidder and the Municipal Council recommended to accept the bid and the bid was submitted to the Government for approval. It is stated that as per Ext.P8, the minutes of the meeting of the High Level committee on private sector participation in the implementation of projects in the Local Self Government Institutions, the Committee decided that the Municipality should re-tender the project specifying the pre-bid discussion date since the bid received was not a competitive one and that complaints were received alleging procedural irregularities. On receipt of Ext.P8, by Ext.P7, the Municipality informed the petitioner about the decision of the Committee and that the matter is pending consideration. WPC 37478/09 :2 : 2. In this writ petition, what the petitioner submits is that they having submitted the bid, which was attractive and acceptable to the Municipality, the Municipality should take a final decision pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8. According to the petitioner, delay in finalising the bid will affect the economic viability of the offer submitted. 3. Counsel for the Municipality agrees that in its assessment, the bid received from the petitioner was an attractive and acceptable one. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P8, reiterating its earlier view that the bid is worth acceptance, the Municipality has sought a review of Ext.P8 decision by moving the Committee itself and also filed an appeal to the Minister concerned. It is stated that it was therefore that it is unable to take a final decision in this matter. 4. As already seen, Ext.P8 reflects a decision of the Committee that the Municipality should go in for fresh tenders. Therefore, unless that decision is reviewed and approval is granted, Municipality will not be in a position to take a final decision in this matter. At this stage, this Court will not be justified in directing the Municipality to take a final decision to accept or WPC 37478/09 :3 : reject the bid of the petitioner. Therefore, a direction requiring the Municipality to take a final decision cannot be issued. Be that as it may, it is a fact that if the decision is inordinately delayed, that will certainly have financial implications as far as the petitioner is concerned, particularly when they say that the concession period is much less as compared to similar contracts which have been entered into by Local Self Government Institutions for similar projects. Therefore, Municipality is directed to ensure that the decision by the 1st respondent is expedited, and on that basis, take a final decision on the offer made by the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp