IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 WA.No. 1986 of 2011 ( ) AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.33283/2011 DATED 21-12-2011 APPELLANT(S) 1 P.K. SULPHIKER S/O. MUHAMMED HAJI GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR KOLATHICKAL HOUSE KEEZHUPARAMBA P.O. AREACODE VIA. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673639. BY ADV.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) RESPONDENT(S) 1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695001. 2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT(KSTP) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. 3 THEEXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSTP DIVISION NEAR MILITARY HOSPITAL WELLESLEY ROAD KANNUR-670001. 4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSTP DIVISION MALAPPURAM-676505. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1986 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The grievance of the appellant is that, despite the earlier course pursued by the respondents in tendering the works in connection with the roads separately, as borne by Exhibit P7 and in spite of the satisfactory completion of the works awarded to the appellant, the respondents took a different turn with respect to the present year while issuing Exhibit P6 clubbing different roads situated in different districts, whereby the bid capacity has been arbitrarily increased and as a natural consequence, the appellant is kept away from the zone of consideration for. 2. The learned Single Judge considered the claim and observed that, it was always open for the awarder to decide, in what manner the works should be tendered and the right of a person who wants to have the work awarded is only a right to participate in the tender, in accordance with the terms notified WA.1986/11 2 and in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, observing that no vested right of the writ petitioner was infringed, nor was there any violation of any fundamental right, interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed, which is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. 3. Going by the materials on record, we find that the appellant was awarded some works in the previous year as covered by Exhibit P7, and it is stated that he has satisfactorily completed the same. But, coming to this year, the concerned respondent has issued Exhibit P6 notification stipulating the specific terms of the tender. The question is whether the appellant satisfies the terms and conditions as stipulated in Exhibit P6 tender. If he satisfies the same, he is very much competent to participate in the tender, otherwise not. It is also to be noted that, there may be several others who are similarly situated, but have become virtually disabled to participate in the tender by virtue of the specific terms in Exhibit P6. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the course pursued by the respondents vide Exhibit P6 is to maintain quality of the work and to assign the works to persons WA.1986/11 3 having the requisite infrastructure to undertake the works. We find absolutely no fault or irregularity in such a course pursued by the respondents. No specific plea of malafides is raised, nor there is any material to infer or establish the same. The scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited and in the absence of any positive material to take a decision to the contrary, we cannot attribute any lapse or fault on the part of the respondents for having issued Exhibit P6 tender, varying the norms as it existed earlier, which, of course, is a matter of policy. It is never open for the participant to dictate terms to the awarder of the contract and it is always for the awarder to decide what are the terms and conditions for the tender and in what manner the desired result has to be achieved. We find no reason to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs