IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 783 of 2008(R) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ABRAHAM P., GOVT.CONTRACTOR, SHYNI BHAVAN, PUTHUR P.O., CHERUMANGAD, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. GOPAKUMAR, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, SREEKULAM, MYLAMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. M.K.PRADEEP KUMAR, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, MADATHILAZHIKATH HOUSE, MYLAMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. PALLIYIL AJI, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, PALLIYIL HOUSE, KULAKKADA EAST, KOTTARAKKARA - VIA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVADY P.O., PUTHUR - VIA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVADY P.O., PUTHUR - VIA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COUNCIL, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVADY P.O., PUTHUR - VIA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. WPC.No.783/08 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D., KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVADY P.O., PUTHUR - VIA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJASENAN, SC, PANCHAYATH GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.783 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT In response to Ext.P1 tender notification, petitioners submitted tenders for a few items of work. The tenders submitted by the petitioners was either at the estimate rates or below the estimate rates by percentages less than 5%. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Panchayat has now issued Ext.P6 re-tender notification including those works for which the petitioners had submitted tenders. The Panchayat relies on Ext.R1(a) resolution. Under R1(a), Panchayat decides to accept those tenders submitted below the estimate rate by 5% or more. Under Ext.R1 (a), Panchayat also decides to reject those tenders which have been submitted for rates above the estimate rates. I find some merit in the submission made by Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvanthazha, learned counsel for the petitioners, that petitioners' tenders will not come within the two categories mentioned in Ext.R1(a). Petitioners' tenders were either in the estimate rate or upto 5% below the estimate rate. This being the WPC.No.783/08 2 position, the Panchayat was not justified in including those works for which tenders were submitted by the petitioners in Ext.P6 re-tender notification. I therefore quash Ext.P6 re-tender notification to the extent it pertains to those works for which the petitioners had submitted tenders and direct the Panchayat to hear the petitioners and take a decision as to whether the petitioners' tenders should be accepted or not. Decision as directed will be taken at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioners to urge all available grounds before the Panchayat. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.783/08 2