IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19785 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. A.K. SHAJI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KURIYAKKOSE, ARAKKAL HOUSE, KANNIVAYAL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.C. SUNIL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. M.K.CHANDU, MACHERIMURIYIL HOUSE, CHEERKAD, PADIYOTTUCHAL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.M.M.ANTO SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPON, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695010, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, KINFRA AIRPORT OFFICER, MUNCIPAL BUILDING, MATTANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN-670 702 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.19785/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TENDER DOCUMENT CONTAINING NOTICE DATED 4/6/2011 P2 COPY OF THE DD OF THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, DATED 20/6/2011. P2(A) COPY OF THE DD OF THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, DATED 20/6/2011. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P4(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 5/7/2011. P5(A) COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 5/7/2011. P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19785 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice issued by the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation for selling the right to tap rubber trees standing on two plots of land acquired by the said Corporation for the purpose of the Kannur Airport, the petitioners submitted their bids. In the tender notification it was stated that the approximate number of trees is 975 in one plot and 970 in the other. It was also stipulated that the tenderer should inspect the land, ascertain the number of trees and also the probable yield before submitting the tender. The petitioners did not inspect the land. They submitted the bids along with the earnest money deposit of Rs.14,000/- each. Their bids were accepted. But thereafter they withdrew their bids. The Corporation thereupon issued a fresh tender notification Ext.P6 inviting bids. It is in this background that the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. It is contended that after the bids were accepted the W.P(C).No.19785 of 2011 -:2:- petitioners noticed that the number of trees is only 800 in one plot and 820 in the other and therefore they requested the Corporation to give proportionate reduction in the bids offered by the petitioners and that as the said request is pending consideration, the Corporation should not have retendered the right to tap the rubber trees. 3. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation, submitted that the Corporation has not decided to retender the right to tap rubber trees at the risk and cost of the petitioners and that the only consequence which the petitioners will be visited with is the forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. The learned standing counsel also submitted that even on the petitioners' own version they were aware that before submitting the bids they were bound to inspect the land for the purpose of ascertaining the number of trees and the boundaries of the plots and that having not done so, the petitioners cannot take advantage of their own omission and contend that they should be given proportionate reduction in the amount quoted by them. 4. Paragraph 3 of Ext.P1 tender notification, pursuant to which the petitioners submitted their bids, stipulates in express terms that persons who wish to participate in the bid should W.P(C).No.19785 of 2011 -:3:- inspect the plots, identify the boundaries, the variety of trees and the possible yield and the number of trees standing in the land. A similar stipulation is incorporated in Ext.P6 tender notice also. The petitioners have no case that prior to the submission of bids they had inspected the plots in question. Therefore, it has to be presumed that it was after inspecting the plots that the petitioners submitted their respective bids. Such being the position, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to proportionate reduction in the bid amount quoted by them, having regard to the number of trees actually in existence. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.19785 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 21st July, 2011