IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16123 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.E.K.K & COMPANY,SECOND FLOOR, MUNICIPAL BUILDING,PERUMBAVOOR-683542,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER E.K.K.MOHAMMED,ENJAKUDY HOUSE,OKKAL.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. E.K.K.MOHAMMED,GOVERNMENT CONCTRACTOR, ENJAKUDY HOUSE,OKKAL.P.O,PERUMBAVOOR-683542, PARTNER M/S EKK & COMPANY. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS SMT.MARYKUTTY BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,TRIVANDRUM-695002,& CONVENOR OF THE PRE-QUALIFICATION COMMITTEE. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,KUTTANAD DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE,CHENGANNUR-689121. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.16123/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TENDDER NOTICE. P2 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE FOR WORK. P3 COPY OF THE SCHEDULE E IN THE TECHNICAL BID WITH WRONG PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION. P4 COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ISSUED BY THE KSTP P5 COPY OF THE LETTER OF R3 INTIMATING ILLEGAL DENIAL OF PRE- QUALIFAICATION. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16123 of 2011 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ext.P1 is the tender notice issued by the third respondent inviting pre-qualified bids for the work mentioned therein. The first petitioner submitted the tender documents along with the technical bid enclosing Ext.P2 experience certificate and other documents. 2. Case of the petitioner is that, by Ext.P5, they were declined to be pre-qualified relying on a typographical error in Ext.P3. It is stated that if Ext.P2 or P4 were taken into account, they would have been pre-qualified. Pointing out the above, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 before the second respondent and the represention is also not considered. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Now that the case of the petitioner is that what is W.P.(C) No.16123/2011 : 2 : relied on to disqualify them is a typographical error and if Ext.P2 or P4 were examined, they would have been pre- qualified for the work notified by Ext.P1, I direct the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation filed by the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. 5. Until orders are passed as above, status quo ordered on 16.06.2011 will continue in force. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/18/08 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge