IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34483 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.LAL,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE SKRIA,CONTRACOTR, KAVANATHOTTATHIL HOUSE OORAMANA P.O.,PIN-686730 MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695001 2. SUPERINTENDEING ENGINEER, O/O.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KUTTANAD DEVALOPMENT CIRCLE, CHENGANNUR-689121 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, O/O.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695001 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34483 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 2nd respondent initially invited tender for the execution of work concerning Mitigation of Flood in various Padasekharams in Kuttanad. Petitioner purchased the tender documents paying Rs.78,000/- and submitted his tender. However, for the reason that the tenders were not received from the minimum specified three tenderers, the tender in question was cancelled. Subsequently by Ext.P2, the work has been retendered by the 2nd respondent. Petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for issuance of tender documents. According to him, he having already paid Rs.78,000 on the previous occasion and as the tender invited was cancelled by the respondents themselves, he should not be called upon once again to pay the price of the tender documents. Tender documents were not issued, and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the stand of the 2nd respondent is that since tender documents are to WPC No. 34483/10 :2 : be issued afresh, petitioner will have to pay the price and purchase the same. 3. Although the fact that the petitioner will have to pay the price for the tender documents cannot be disputed, fact remains that the petitioner paid price and had already purchased the tender documents on the previous occasion, and that the tender was cancelled by the 2nd respondent himself for no fault of the petitioner. If that be so, necessarily the 2nd respondent is obliged to refund the purchase price of the tender document, and therefore, the 2nd respondent should have, in all fairness, issued the tender documents to the petitioner without compelling him to pay for the tender documents once again. 4. However, having regard to the fact that the last date for issuance of the tender document is 19/11/2010, and taking note of the paucity of time involved, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; (1) That it will be open to the petitioner to purchase the tender documents in pursuance to Ext.P2, by paying the price thereof and submit his tenders. (2) It is directed that, on the production of a copy of this WPC No. 34483/10 :3 : judgment, the 2nd respondent will ensure that the price paid by the petitioner for the tender document on the previous occasion is refunded to him at any rate within 10 days thereafter. (3) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp