IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17165 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARVIND ENGINEERING CO. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.ARVIND KUMAR GOEL, AGED 56 YEARS, OFFICE SITUATED AT 29 & 30, FIRST FLOOR, UNITY HOUSE, ABID ROAD, HYDERABAD - 500 001. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.DIVYA C.MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING, INDIRA BHAVAN, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT.INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, CHALAKUDY - 680 307. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No.17165 & 17177 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Almost identical facts are involved in these two writ petition. Therefore they have been heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. I will refer to the facts in writ petition 17165 of 2009 for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner, a partnership firm was carrying on business of dealers of engineering, Survey, Drawing, Scientific instruments, Stationery and allied products. First respondent called for tender for supply of some Tools and Equipments as evidenced by Ext.P1 and P2. P3 to P5 quotations were submitted by the petitioner. The terms were found to be acceptable and P6 to P8 purchase orders were placed by first respondent. Certain materials in terms of the supply orders were supplied as well. According to the petitioner, the first respondent then proceeded to cancel all the orders as per Ext.P12. This has been challenged in the writ petition. WPC. 17165 & 17177 OF 2009 : 2 : 4. Ext.P12 has been challenged in the writ petition on various grounds. I am of the view that the petitioner shall first approach the first respondent for revocation of Ext.P12. The first respondent shall then consider the question of revoking Ext.P12. If a revival of the original purchase orders can be brought about, then it is open to the first respondent to do so. 5. Accordingly if the petitioners file a detailed representation before the first respondent, in the manner aforementioned, the first respondent shall look into the same and after notice to the petitioner take appropriate decision on such representation within one month from the date of receipt of the representation along with copy of the judgment and copy of the writ petitions. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) jma