IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10696 of 2008(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- NELSON PANJIKKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, PANJIKKARAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 572. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SMT.SHERLY THOMAS SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THRISSUR. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, 110 KV SUBSTATION COMPOUND, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10696 OF 2008 W ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought for in this writ petition are to direct the respondents to award the contract in pursuance to Ext.P1 tender notice to the petitioner. There is a further prayer that the insistence of experience certificate for doing the work in Ext.P1 is unwarranted and that Ext.P3 certificate produced by the petitioner is sufficient to meet the requirements of Ext.P1. Going by the petitioner's own case, in my view petitioner is not entitled to succeed. 2. Ext.P1 is the tender notice. In Ext.P1, it is provided as follows: Experience certificate for having done similar type of work and issued from not below the rank of Executive Engineer shall be enclosed along with the tender documents at the time of submission. On instruction standing counsel for the Board submits that the aforesaid provision is consistent with the general conditions of contract as laid down by the Board. 3. As against the above requirement, what the petitioner produced is Ext.P3, a certificate issued by a contractor and not by a person WPC 10696/08 :2 : not below the rank of Executive Engineer, as prescribed in Ext.P1. Therefore, from the documents produced by the petitioner itself it is obvious that the tender submitted by the petitioner was invalid. 4. Petitioner seeks a declaration that the nature of the work does not justify a prescription of experience certificate as contained in Ext.P1. First of all, the conditions of a tender notice are in the realm of contract and are not matters subject to judicial review except in cases of extreme arbitrariness or malafides. None of these vitiating circumstances have been made out by the petitioner. 5. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the rate quoted by him was the lowest and that the endeavour of the respondents was to award the tender at a higher rate. In view of the invalidity of the tender that was submitted by the petitioner, though this contention does not merit consideration, still I record the submission of the learned counsel for the Board that the tender which has already been awarded pursuant to Ext.P1 is at a rate lesser by 2% than what was quoted by the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp