IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6006 of 2009(U) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. P. ANOOP KUMAR, A GRADE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, AISWARYA, POOTHANKARA HOUSE, P.O. VENGERI, KOZHIKODE - 673 010. 2. O. RAVIKUMAR, B GRADE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, AYILLYAM, P.O. AYIKKAPARAMBI, PULIKKZL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, BUILDINGS & LOCAL WORKS, P.W.D NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 6006 OF 2009 (U) ==================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, a notice inviting tenders published by the 2nd respondent. The works tendered are at item Nos.1 to 6 of Ext.P1 itself. A reading of the tender notice shows that the notice is a consolidated one in as much as it involves civil and electrical workers. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners question the validity of Ext.P6 mainly on the basis that consolidated tender as is now invited by Ext.P6 is impermissible. According to him, if the work involves electrical work also, separate tender should be invited. 2. Although I have heard the senior counsel for the petitioner at length, still, the learned senior counsel was not in a position to show me any provision of law or even executive instruction which prohibits invitation of consolidated tenders involving civil and electrical works, as has been done in Ext.P6. It was contended that electrical works cannot be undertaken by licenced civil contractors and therefore, Ext.P6 is invalid. A reading of Ext.P6 itself show that the electrical works are required to be done by licenced electrical contractors. Therefore, this objection now raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is taken care of in WPC 6006/09 :2 : Ext.P6 itself. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that if this type of tenders are invited, electrical contractors like the petitioners will not be in a position to compete for the work in as much as the works will be awarded only to the civil contractors. In my view, it is upto the awarder to decide as to whether consolidated tender should be invited or not and that by itself will not invalidate Ext.P6. Even otherwise when civil works are given on contract, it is always open to the contractor to chose his own electrical workers to get the incidental electrical work done and against such arrangement, the electrical contractor cannot raise any objection. 4. Since the petitioners could not point out any Rule, Government Order or other binding direction issued by any authority prohibiting invitation of consolidated tender as has been done by Ext.P6, I see nothing objectionable in the same. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp