IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27929 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.GEE CANS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, S.M. REMESH, MFRS. OF COMPOSITE CANS, 1017D, TENKASI ROAD, RAJAPALAYAM-626 117, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TRANANCORE DEVESWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON 15/09/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.27929 of 2010-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner is a proprietary concern. Its proprietor is one S.M.Remesh. He seeks a direction to the respondents to award the contract for supply of composite cans pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 in his favour also. 2.We have perused the decision of the Purchase Committee. The case of the petitioner is dealt with at Sl.No.2. Admittedly, the proprietary concern of Ramesh Babu has not done the work of supply during any of the previous years. Ramesh Babu appears to have been the Managing Partner of some partnership firm which had supplied composite cans during the previous years. The WPC27929/10 -: 2 :- Board officials have assessed the supplies made by that firm as quite unsatisfactory. 3.Going by the tender conditions, the intending supplier has to provide P & L Accounts for three previous years. Indisputably, Sri.Ramesh Babu, as a proprietor, is unable to show any P & L Accounts for the previous year, evidently because he had no business, as a proprietor, for the last year, in the field in question. We do not, therefore, find it feasible to compel the Board to accept and act upon the tender submitted by him. 4.The petitioner has a case that Ext.P2 was issued by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner requiring him to inform his willingness. There is good amount of confusion regarding the date of Ext.P2, even on its face, and the recitals therein. The Board, through its Secretary, stands to refute that Ext.P2 was issued by the Devaswom Commissioner. Ext.P2 shows that it is approved for issue by the WPC27929/10 -: 3 :- Deputy Devaswom Commissioner. The Secretary states in the counter affidavit that the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner is stated to have issued Ext.P2 on a mistake of fact. We are not inclined to act upon Ext.P2 and to issue any further orders in favour of the petitioner. That will only tend to interfere with the smooth carrying out of the immediate requirement for supply of the cans. 5.We do not find any ground to issue any orders in favour of the petitioner in this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Judge. Sha/1409