IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24896 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BINU AND COMPANY, PEZHUMTHURUTHU, PERUMAN P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR S.S.BINU. BY ADV. MR.T.M.CHANDRAN MR.V.A.SASIDHARAN MR.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (CIVIL CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., VYDHYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 ADV. MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.24896 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner aspires to take part in the tender proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 tender notice issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board. But he has not been favoured with a tender form to submit his tender, is his complaint. According to him, although he is not a manufacturer of the machines, for which tender notice has been issued, to avoid the petitioner from the tender proceedings, a clause has been inserted in the tender notice restricting issue of tender forms only to licensed manufacturers of the machines. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has produced Ext.P2 letter addressed to the Deputy Chief Engineer another zone of the KSE Board, pursuant to which the petitioner has been given tender forms in respect of another zone. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 tender notice issued, W.P.(c)No.24896/10 2 one day after Ext.P2, incorporating a clause that the tender forms shall be issued only to licensed manufacturer of the machines is malafide and therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the tender. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P4; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondent No.2 to issue tender form as requested for in Ext.P4 submitted in pursuance of Ext.P3 tender notice and to consider the tender after accepting the same to be submitted by the petitioner”. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board would contend that in so far as in Ext.P3 tender notice it is specifically stated that the tender forms shall be issued only licensed manufacturers of machines for purchase of which tenders are invited, and having service centre in Kerala, which qualification the petitioner does not have, the petitioner cannot seek tender forms,especially since the petitioner has not challenged that stipulation. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Admittedly, as per Ext.P3 tender notice, “tender forms shall be issued only to licensed manufacturer of the above machines and having service centre in Kerala”. Admittedly, the W.P.(c)No.24896/10 3 petitioner is not a licensed manufacturer. Therefore, going by the tender conditions, the petitioner is not eligible to be supplied with tender forms. The petitioner does not challenge the said tender condition also. The petitioner's allegations of malafides do not find favour with me. Certainly, by inviting tenders from licensed manufacturers, the KSEB would only benefit in so far as they would get more competitive prices. For incorporating such a condition, I cannot infer malafides on the part of the Board officials. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not impleaded any officer of the KSEB in his personal capacity to allege and prove malafides against him. Further I cannot believe that it is because on 14.7.2010 the petitioner issued Ext.P2, a new clause has been inserted in Ext.P3 tender notice issued on 15.7.2010. A tender notice cannot be issued or amended within one day. It is only after detailed deliberations that a tender notification is issued. Such a notification cannot also be amended within one day as contended by the petitioner. Therefore I do not find any basis for the contention of the petitioner that it is because he issued Ext.P2 on 14.7.2010, Ext.P3 was issued on 15.7.2010 with an additional clause with the intention to exclude the petitioner. W.P.(c)No.24896/10 4 Further, without challenging the conditions in Ext.P3 tender notice the petitioner cannot seek a direction to supply the tender form contrary to the conditions in Ext.P3. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.24896/10 5