IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35910 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHANO.P,S/O.SRI.PRABHAKARAN ,AGED 32, YEARS,R/AT SUMA BHAVAN,CHEMMAKKADU P.O, PERINADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SRI.C.S.DIAS, SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT KSHEERABHAVAN,PATTOM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., HAVING ITS DISTRICT LEVEL OFFICE AT KAIPATTOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DAIRY MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 35930 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 35910, 35930, 36058 & 36072 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T 1st respondent invited tenders for transportation of milk/milk products for distribution to authorised agents/selling points for a period of two years in different districts of the State. 2. In so far as these writ petitions are concerned, petitioners are transporting contractors, who responded to the tender notice and were awarded tenders for transporting milk/milk products in Pathanamthitta District and who also entered into agreements with the 1st respondent. The period of the agreement is till 2012. During the currency of the agreement, Ext.P4 tender notification was issued by the 1st respondent, inviting fresh tenders for the areas in respect of which tenders have been awarded to the petitioners. It is thereupon, these writ petitions have been filed challenging Ext.P4 tender notification and seeking directions to the respondents to do nothing upsetting the present transport agreements. 3. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it is submitted that the 1st respondent had decided to review the existing transporting WPC Nos. 35910, 35930, 36058 & 36072 OF 2010 :2 : system and it was therefore that they issued Ext.P4. It is stated that although Ext.P4 was issued, no acceptable response was received in pursuance thereof and that nothing has been finalised so far. It is also submitted that even if the new system is decided to be introduced, the same will be only after terminating the agreements with the petitioners in terms of the provisions of the transporting agreements which are already entered into with the petitioners. In my view, the submission thus made should redress the grievance of the petitioners atleast for the present, and therefore, recording the submission of the standing counsel for the 1st respondent as above, these writ petitions are closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp