IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1876 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31505/2011 Dated 25/11/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M/S/ MANAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, NO.5.GANESHA BHAVAN, S.V. LANE, 3RD CROSS CHICKPET BANGALORE-560053, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.B.SURENDRA SHIYAL, S/O.LATE BAWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ENGG - ELECT) AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVNDRUM AIR PORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008. 2. THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION, AAI, CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CHENNAI-600027. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1876 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We have gone through the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2011. The appellant has approached this Court contending that there were no allegations of any nature. In other words, no details of allegation made against them are forthcoming, why action should not be taken forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit(EMD for short). The brief facts that led to the present appeal are as under. 2. In response to the tender notice issued by the respondents, the appellant had submitted its tender. As per the requirement of the application seeking for tenders they had to produce certain documents. In pursuance of the same, Exts.P3 and P4 were produced. Subsequently, the respondent found, Ext.P3 was not issued by the Bagalkot Town Development authority. Therefore they intimated the respondent/appellant why action should not be taken against him by forfeiting the EMD. W.A. No. 1876 of 2011 -:2:- 3. A reply came to be given and the same was considered by the authority concerned by passing an order at Ext.P10. It is also pertinent to mention that apart from the proposal for forfeiting the EMD, there was a proposal of debarring the appellant herein from participating in tender process. Ext.P10 came to be challenged before the appellate authority but the appeal also came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition came to be filed. 4. The learned Judge, after referring to the requirements to be complied with by the appellant herein to get the tender in his favour opined that, the very information furnished by him in response to the tender notice was incorrect. On the other hand, in spite of the show cause notice, neither in the reply to the show cause notice nor before the authority which passed Ext.P10 nor before the appellate authority who passed Ext.P9, the appellant produced any letter or document from the Bagalkot Town Development authority confirming the fact of issuance of Ext.P3. Therefore, there was no justification in the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. W.A. No. 1876 of 2011 -:3:- 5. We note from the records that neither before the learned Single Judge nor before this Court also, the appellant is able to tender any certificate or letter from the Bagalkot Town Development authority confirming the fact that Ext.P3 is a genuine document issued by them. In that view of the matter, mere non-furnishing of better details, regarding the allegations made against the appellant herein, cannot be a ground to entertain this appeal. Therefore, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for us to consider in this appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb