IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7619 of 2011(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.CONCORD CONSTRUCTIONS, KALLATRA COMPOUND, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KKOTTACHERRY, KANHANGAD, REP.BY ITS PARTNER IBRAHIM KALLATRA. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SMT. IMTHYAZ AHAMMED M.S. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGH WAYS, NORTH CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR, PWD COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE - 1. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.NATIONAL HIGH WAYS, P.W.D.OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R2 BYSR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7619 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to evaluate the tender documents as per Ext.P1 notification in accordance with Ext.P2 Standard Bidding Document (SBD) format particularly with regard to Bank Guarantee (Bid Security). ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to consider and evaluate defective tender documents submitted by other bidders for the Ext.P1 notified work. Iii) Declare that the consideration of the invalid and incomplete bid document by anybody is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. iv) Issue such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit, just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Going by the nature of the reliefs sought for, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court on some apprehension as to the manner in which the tender is about to be finalized. W.P.(C) No. 7619/2011 - 2 - 3. Mr.K.Ramakumar the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been given to understand that some of the tenders are not in the prescribed form, particularly with regard to the 'Bank Guarantee' to be furnished. It is also stated that the respondents are taking hasty steps to have the tender finalised on 16-03-2011, also reckoning such defective 'Bank Guarantees' and the defective tenders, contrary to the stipulations. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the tender conditions have already been notified and that the tender would be finalised in accordance with the terms of the tender and in accordance with law. It is also pointed out that the cause of action is still to arise and that the Writ Petition is premature. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the tender proceedings; which shall be finalized adhering to the tender conditions and such other relevant norms/conditions/orders, if any, in accordance with law. The petitioner as well as the parties concerned are at liberty to point out the relevant aspects before the competent authority. Writ Petition is disposed of. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE