IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17673 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.ISMAIL, NASEEB HOUSE, PANNIYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, KSRTC HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM-695 051. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, KSRTC HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM-695 051. 3. THE ESTATE OFFICER, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, KSRTC HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM-695 051. 4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KSRTC BUS STATION, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17673/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION NO.G1-3340/11/EKM ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 1/06/2011. P2: COPY OF TENDER FORM DTD. 8/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 8/06/2011 FOR RS.25,000/- ISSUED BY ATO, ERNAKULAM. P4: COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT, IN FAVOUR OF ATO , KSRTC, ERNAKULAM. P5: COPY OF SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE DTD. 6/06/2011. P6: COPY OF NATIVITY CERTIFICATE DTD. 8/06/2011. P7: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.G1.3340/2011/EKM DTD. 28/06/2011. P8: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.G.1.3340/2011/EKM DTD. 1/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.17673 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a tender notice issued by the respondents inviting tenders for allotment of stall No.1 in its Ernakulam Depot. Ext.P2 is the tender submitted by the petitioner in response to Ext.P1, offering monthly license fee of Rs.80958/-. However, despite being the highest offer, tender was not confirmed in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand the petitioner came to know that steps were being taken for retendering the stall. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to allot the stall in his favour and not to resort to retender. 2. Standing counsel has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the standing counsel since the rate quoted by the petitioner was lower than the minimum rate fixed, the respondents invited the re-tender. However, offers received were lower than even the rate quoted by the W.P(C) No.17673 of 2011 2 petitioner. Therefore, according to the counsel, retender was not fruitful and the tender submitted by the petitioner will have to be processed. 3. In such circumstances, it is evident that the apprehension that as a result of the retender initiated by the respondents tender will not be awarded to the petitioner is baseless. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents shall process the tender submitted by the petitioner and pass final orders in the matter. This shall be done at any rate within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE