IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21769 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JEYA GUNNY STORES, 2ND MILE STONE, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 004, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, M.NADANASABHAPATHY. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERAFED, KERA TOWER, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MARKETING MANAGER, KERAFED, KERA TOWER, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. HAJEE N.O.S. MOHAMED ALI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.N.O.S. OLD GUNNY MERCHANT, NO.18, PUDUMANAI PUTHU STREET, UDANGUDI-628 203, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 4. A.R.ARUMUGAM, PROPRIETOR, M/S.JAIRAM STEELS, SCRAP WHOLE SALE DEALER, 22/2,AMMINI AMMAL COLONY, MACHAMPALAYAM, SUNDARAPURAM, COIMBATORE-641 029, TAMILNADU. ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ,SC,KERALA KERA KARS FOR R1-2 SMT.SUNITHA VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21769/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT CONTAINING QUOTATION- CUM-AUCTION NOTICE DATED 12.7.2011 PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 15.7.2011. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 20.7.2011. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21769 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T 1st respondent invited tenders for the disposal of gunny bags. Petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 submitted their offers. Among the response received, petitioner's was the highest. His case is that despite being the highest tenderer and inspite of the three tenderers not making any revised offer, the tender has been awarded to the 4th respondent. It is with this allegation, the writ petition is filed. 2. In view of the allegations levelled, notice by messenger was issued and the counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. From the submissions made by the learned standing counsel what is disclosed is that when the initial offers were received from the three parties, offers were below the expectation of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, they gave opportunity to all the three tenderers to revise their offers. It is stated that taking advantage of the opportunity so given, the 4th respondent submitted a revised offer of `6.15 per bag. It is stated that the only revised offer was from the 4th respondent and the WPC No. 21769/11 :2 : same was accepted and work order was awarded. 3. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he was present throughout and nobody had made any revised offer, the facts disclosed by the learned standing counsel is otherwise. Thus, this court is left with allegations and counter allegations and such a disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, in any case, fact remains that the offer accepted is at a rate which is higher than what was offered by the tenderers initially. 4. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp