IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27013 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- INFANT THOMAS, MATTEL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU,IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): 2 ---------------- 1. ADIMALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADIMALI, IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,ADIMALI BLOCK, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,ADIMALI BLOCK, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNEMNT (DA), DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN , J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No.27013 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted a tender pursuant to a notification issued by the first respondent Panchayath on 16.4.2008. The Panchayath is now accused of having made that notification on the basis of PAC determined on the rates which prevailed earlier. The first among the petition (Ext.P1 dt.5.5.2008) is hardly within a month from the commencement of the exercise of awarding the contract. 2. Whatever that be, the materials reflect that the petitioner quoted just 2% above the estimated PAC while the competitors, who lost to the petitioner, had quoted at rates ranging from 18% to 36%, over and above the PAC. What is more interesting is that within a short period of time, the Panchayath entered into negotiation with the petitioner and started meddling with the quoted rates. 3. Now, the petitioner, even without any statement in the writ petition that he has done any part work, wants this Court to direct the panchayath to consider his representation W.P. (C) No.27013 OF 2009 . : 2 : for revision of rates at par with PWD rates as on the date of tender notice on the premise that the Government had already issued revised rates and has applied to the LSGIs. 4. Viewed in any angle, this Court apprehends that in this case, the entire transaction leading to the contract in question could be intriguing. It deserves a look by the Local Self Government Department in the Government of Kerala, at the highest level, to find out whether the transaction is above board and whether any directions are required to be issued. It would also be worthwhile for the LSG department to consider whether the rates have to be revised and still further, if it concludes so, was it not a competition without actuals being placed before the competitors? Learned Government Pleader will make available a copy of this writ petition and a copy of this judgment to the Principal Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department who will do the needful through appropriate officers at the earliest. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. ( THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jma