IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3613 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.MALABAR ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CITY GATE, BYPASS JUNCTION, KACHERIPPADI, MANJERI-676 121. BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J, SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 4. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, P.B.NO.404, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN, R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3613 of 2011 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a partnership firm which has obtained A Class registration with the Public Works Department. Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the first respondent inviting pre-qualification bids for the works mentioned therein. This notification, inter alia, provides that concession which is allowed to the Kerala State Construction Corporation and Labour Contract Co-operative Societies as per Rules in force will be applicable. According to the petitioner, such a provision in Ext.P1 has been made on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3, which are Government Orders dated 28-04-1988 and 07-08-1997 respectively, which provide for a price preference of 10% in favour of the fourth respondent, a Government Company. 2. Petitioner impugns the validity of Exts.P2 and P3 and the aforesaid provision of Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, this provision is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) W.P.(C) No.3613/2011 : 2 : of the Constitution of India. 3. In my view, the Government being the awarder of contract, it is also open to the Government to frame a policy providing for price preference in favour of the institutions such as Government Companies like the fourth respondent and if such a price preference is provided, there cannot be any invalidity as sought to be made out by the petitioner. This issue is covered by the Apex Court judgments in Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala and others [1997 (9) SCC 495], Harminder Singh Arora Vs. Union of India and others [1986 (3) SCC 247], Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikrata Sangh Society and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another [1981 (4) SCC 535] and also a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Biodigital (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Others [ILR 2010 (4) Ker 462]. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks