IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33743 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH VARKEY,S/O.VARKEY,AGED 30 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR,KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE,PLACHIKKARA, PO VIA PARAPPA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 533. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.NIAS MOOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,SECRETYARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY,FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER,PWD,ROADS AND BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD , ROADS AND BRIDGES(NORTH) CIRCLE,KOZHIKODE. 5. SREEKANDAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, LOTUS NIVAS,TEMPLE ROAD, ALAMIPALLY,KANCHANGAD,HOSEDURG. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 33743 of 2010 P ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T In response to a tender invited by the fourth respondent for the construction of a bridge, petitioner submitted his tender. His offer was 7.5% below the PAC. According to the petitioner, the offer made by the fifth respondent was 35% above the PAC. On account of litigations which came to be instituted in the meanwhile, further proceedings got delayed. In any case, later, when the petitioner was asked his willingness to execute the work, he submitted Ext.P4 claiming enhancement of rates. Thereupon, respondents ascertained willingness of the other tenderers and the fifth respondent expressed his willingness to undertake the work. Accordingly, negotiation was held and the petitioner states that the fifth respondent reduced his offer from 35% above the PAC to 24% above the PAC. Work is now proposed to be awarded. Objecting to the above, W.P.(C) No.33743/10 : 2 : petitioner submitted representation. Response was not forthcoming. Therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. Despite the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not in a position to find fault with the respondents. As already seen petitioner made his offer and quoted his rates. When his willingness was asked for, he demanded revision of rates effectively by 17.5%. Therefore, petitioner retracted from his offer and, therefore, the respondents could not have considered his offer. In such circumstances, the only option the respondents had was to have considered the tenders made by the other tenderers. It was in such circumstances that the offer made by the fifth respondent was considered and rate was negotiated with him. There cannot be any irregularity in such conduct. 3. As contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the amount which is to be paid to the fifth respondent will be more than what would have been payable to the petitioner if his tender was accepted. Respondents are also bound to W.P.(C) No.33743/10 : 3 : consider the tenders complying with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, once they have decided to go ahead with the tenders, they could only accept the other tenders. Therefore, this contention also has no force. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge