IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14075 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.RAVINDRAN,AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN RELESH R.VILLA, CHANGANKULANGARA VAVVAKKAVU P.O., OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682036, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI. BENNY P. THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14075 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T 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. 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. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.