IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22894 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- HAREENDRA RAJAN, AGED 41, S/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, T.C.65/386, KIRAN, MANILAM, THIRUVALLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION `TEXT BOOK BRANCH', PADMAVILASAM, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TEXT BOOK OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TEXT BOOK OFFICER, PADMAVILAS, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STORE KEEPER, CENTRAL TEXT BOOK STORE, ERNAKULAM. 5. SACHIDANANDAN NAIR, MANGATTU VEEDU, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27. 6. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, L.106, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM P.O. 7. SOON SUDHAKARAN, A2, HMT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM P.O. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 22894 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st August,2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 tender notification was issued inviting sealed tenders from loading and unloading contractors for undertaking the works of loading and unloading of text books and reels of papers from the Central Text Book Stores in Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Thrissur. One of the conditions prescribed is 5 years experience in lifting materials of Government Department/ Public Sector Undertakings. Another condition is to provide EMD by way of crossed demand draft drawn at the State Bank of Travancore/State Bank of India. According to the petitioner , a similar condition imposed for the previous year was ultimately relaxed by the Government and the contract was awarded to a person who did not satisfy the same. 2. During the present year, apart from the petitioner, respondents 6 and 7 had also participated in the tender. The Director of Public Instruction, the 2nd respondent found that all the tenders received are defective and therefore sought opinion of the Government W.P ( C) No. 22894 of 2009 2 as to which option should be accepted namely either to go for a re-tender or to permit the tenderers to cure the defect and then award the contract to the lowest tenderer. 3. It seems that the Government have chosen the option of re-tender and hence this writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs. “I. to declare that 5 years experience certificate insisted and demand draft to be drawn at SBT/SBI in Ext.P1 as unconstitutional; II. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the records pertaining to Exhibits P2 and P3 and quash the same; and III. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 to 5 to award the contract to petitioner who is the lowest tenderer.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the 6th respondent. 5. The scope of interference with the clause in the conditions of the tender notification is extremely limited. Unless this Court is in a position to say that the condition has been adopted to particularly suit the convenience of any particular tender, this Court would be reluctant to W.P ( C) No. 22894 of 2009 3 interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. But I do not think it is necessary to finally pronounce on this aspect as to whether the conditions requiring 5 years experience for a tenderer is arbitrary in circumstances where the respondents have decided to go for a re-tender. I find nothing illegal in the decision taken by the respondents. Admittedly the petitioner did not satisfy the condition of 5 years experience at the time of notification. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of leaving open the contentions of the petitioner in this regard open and if the condition regarding 5 years experience is retained in a subsequent tender notification and the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he is at liberty to take appropriate steps in relation to the said condition. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 22894 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No. 22894 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No. 22894 of 2009 6