IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27422 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAFARUDEEN, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, R.B.MANZIL, CHOLA, PANMANA, PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691587. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.R.PRADEEP (SREEKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, OCHIRA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, OCHIRA, KOLLAM-690526. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. SUB DIVISION, OCHIRA BLOCK PANCHAYATH OCHIRA, KOLLAM-690526. SRI. C.M.SURESH BABU[SPL.G.P.] THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27422 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a registered A Class Contractor. Pursuant to Ext.P2 tender notice issued by the second respondent, he submitted his bids. It is stated that his bid in respect of the 4th item in Ext.P2 tender notice was the lowest and that it was accepted. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that notwithstanding the said fact, Ext.P3 tender notice was issued to re-tender the said work. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to proceed with the work covered by item No.4 in Ext.P2. It is contended that the tendering authority had on 18.8.2010 decided to re-tender only the second item of work described in Ext.P2 tender notice and had decided to accept the lowest bids received in respect of the other three items of works described therein. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 3.9.2010, Sri.C.M.Suresh Babu, learned Special Government Pleader, was W.P(C).No.27422 of 2010 -:2:- requested to get instructions. Today, when the writ petition was taken up for further hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that only two valid bids had been received in respect of the works described as items 2 to 4 in Ext.P2 tender notice, that the lowest bid in respect of item No.1 for which four persons had submitted bids was 6.9% below the estimate rate and that the said offer was accepted. As regards the other three items of work, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since there were only two valid tenders and the tenderers had quoted only 0.02% below the estimate rate, the Committee of the Block Panchayat that met on 19.8.2010 decided to invite fresh tenders in relation to the said three items of work and thereupon Ext.P3 revised tender notice was issued. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that as the Block Panchayat has taken a decision to go in for re-tenders in view of the public interest involved, the petitioner cannot seek or be granted the reliefs prayed for. 3. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel on either side. It is evident from the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the tendering authority has decided to re- tender three items of work described in Ext.P2 tender notification on W.P(C).No.27422 of 2010 -:3:- the ground that there were only a limited number of bids and that the price quoted by the tenderers was only 0.02% below the estimate rate. In other words it is evident from the stand taken by the respondents that they decided to go in for a re-tender in view of the poor response to Ext.P2 tender notification and also the price offered by the tenderers. In my opinion, the petitioner, who has no vested right to have his tender accepted even if it be the lowest one, cannot be heard to contend that the tendering authority was bound to accept his tender. The tendering authority is, in my opinion, well within its rights to decide whether it should go in for a re-tender. In such circumstances I 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.27422 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th September, 2010