IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6819 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STAR COMMUNICATIONS,ARANGATH CROSS ROAD, PULLEPADI,COCHIN-18,REP.BY ITS PARTNER SRI.N.M.ZHAKKARIA,NOW RESIDING AT ILLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,ASOKA ROAD, KALOOR,COCHIN. BY ADV. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL MR.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE COCHIN CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION. 3. PAUL JOSEPH,VALIYA PARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIKKAPILLIL HOUSE, PACHALAM P.O.,COCHIN-12. MR. S. RAMESH BABU - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.6819 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted a tender for collection of various fees from public market, bus stand, fish stall, parking place, taxi stand, slaughter house etc., under the Cochin Corporation pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification. When the tenders were opened, it was found that the petitioner quoted only Rs.51 lakhs and the 3rd respondent quoted Rs.56 lakhs. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the Corporation is trying to negotiate with the 3rd respondent for increasing his offer and therefore, the petitioner should also be invited for negotiation, since the petitioner is prepared to offer more. The petitioner's contention is that by virtue of Clause 8 of Ext.P1 tender notification, the petitioner is entitled to be invited for negotiation along with the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to invite the petitioner also for a W.P.(c)No.6819/09 2 negotiation before finalising and awarding the right to collect bus stand fee to the third respondent as requested by the petitioner in Ext.P2 representation. ii. declare that the action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in inviting the third respondent alone for negotiation in connection with finalisation of the tender relating to the collection of bus stand fee is per se illegal, arbitrary and irregular”. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation also. After hearing both sides, I am unable to agree with the petitioner. The tender proceedings are over. The petitioner has lost the race and the 3rd respondent has won. Thereafter, there is no question of any negotiation. Even if any negotiations are conducted, that is only for the purpose of persuading the 3rd respondent to pay more. The tender has not yet been finalised. May be, the Corporation can decide whether what has been offered by the 3rd respondent is also acceptable to the Corporation. But there is nothing wrong with the Corporation negotiating with the 3rd respondent to see whether he, who has made the highest offer in the tender W.P.(c)No.6819/09 3 process, is willing to offer more. I do not find anything wrong with the said step taken by the Corporation. In any event the petitioner cannot have any grievance since no conditions of the tender have been violated. Clause 8 of the tender conditions also does not come to the assistance of the petitioner in that regard. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.6819/09 4