IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28684 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOJY VASU, S/O.VASU, AGED 34, "KRIPA SADANAM", VIKAS NAGAR, SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CHIEF ENGINEER (PROJECTS), HLL LIFECARE LIMITED, AKKULAM FACTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695017. BY ADV.E.K.MADHAVAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.28684 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Madhavan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a 'B' class contractor. When the HLL Lifecare Ltd. issued Exts.P4, P5 and P6 tender notices relating to different items of civil works, the petitioner submitted his tenders. According to the petitioner, after the tenders were opened, it was found that his tenders were the lowest. His grievance is that instead of executing an agreement, fresh tender notices have been issued in respect of the very same work. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to award the works covered by Exts.P4, P5 and P6 tender notices to him. WPC.28684/09 Page numbers 3. Sri.E.K.Madhavan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits, on instructions, that as per Exts.P4 to P6 tender notices, tenders had to be submitted before 3 p.m. on 24.8.2009 and were to be opened at 3.30 p.m. on the same day. He submits that the petitioner submitted his tenders only at 3.27 p.m. on the last date and this defect was pointed out by another tenderer. He also submits that it was without noticing this crucial aspect that the petitioner's tenders were opened in the presence of other tenderers. The learned standing counsel submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner's tenders were belatedly received, the respondent decided to re-tender the work and issued fresh tender notices on 25.9.2009. 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the covers in which the petitioner submitted his tenders were made available. The covers contain an endorsement to the effect that they were received only at 3.27 p.m., after the time stipulated for submission of tenders. In my opinion, the tenders submitted by WPC.28684/09 Page numbers the petitioner after the time stipulated for submission of tenders would not have been acted upon. The respondent is, therefore, well within its rights to invite fresh tenders. The petitioner who did not comply with the tender conditions set out in Exts.P4 to P6 cannot be heard to contend that the works should be awarded to him. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. In view of the fact that the petitioner's tenders have been rejected, the respondent shall take steps to refund the EMD paid by the petitioner within one week from today. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. kkb.