IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2805 of 2009 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14661/2009 Dated 10/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------- MATHOOR.S., KUMAR MANDIRAM, TC 9/76, S.S.KOVIL LANE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOUDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY & DIARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA, EDAYAR, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CHAIR PERSON, KERALA STATE POULTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REGISTERED OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2805 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The appellant claiming to be the liaison agent of Fortune Health Care Company has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by him. His complaint before the learned Single Judge was that the tender document for which advertisement is issued by the third respondent was priced at exorbitant value and that there is no transparency in the procedure adopted. He took the stand that the advertised tender information was that none would be able to get at the relevant details except by spending an amount of Rs.25000/- towards the price of tender documents with applicable Value Added Tax, etc. 2. The learned Single Judge held that on locus W.A. No.2805 of 2009 2 standi the petitioner has not demonstrated the sufficient stand and that the writ petition by him should necessarily fail. Beyond that, the learned Single Judge also took stock of the realities and came to the conclusion in exercise of his discretion that the pricing of the tender documents cannot be said to be disproportionate with the total value of the contract amount. 3. Having heard learned counsel quite in extenso, a few more facts emerged. We find that along with the counter affidavit, the third respondent had placed before the learned Single Judge the materials relating to the tender in the form of Ext.R3(K). That document vividly describes the materials that were required by the third respondent. It is stated that the third respondent further enlarged the time for submission of tender. As of now, the appellant/petitioner has not submitted his tender even going by such extended time frame, though the learned W.A. No.2805 of 2009 3 counsel for the appellant states that his client had no information about the extension of time. Taking the aforesaid facts also into consideration, we do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that pricing of the tender documents is quite reasonable and that the appellant had not demonstrated his locus standi to the satisfaction of the learned Single Judge for having the writ petition entertained. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. But in public realm, the bunch of papers before us disclose that the third respondent has not acted with such transparency as is expected from a public institution. Though we do not find any material on record to impede the selection and award of contract made by the third respondent, we took note, in this context, of the fact that the State Government had W.A. No.2805 of 2009 4 issued clear guidelines regarding the purchase and the conduct in hand is relatable to purchase of poultry materials (food) to the tune of over Rupees two crores. If that were so, we doubt whether it was sufficient that the tender procedure adopted was fair and reasonable. However, though we do not interfere with the case in hand, this matter requires attention of the competent authority for future guidance. Hence, the first respondent is directed to look into the procedure adopted by the third respondent and issue such directions as may be necessary atleast for future guidance. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further requested that the costs of Rupees five thousand imposed by the learned Single Judge may be vacated. That imposition has been made in exercise of the discretion and also on the pleadings of the second respondent that he is an unnecessary party to the writ W.A. No.2805 of 2009 5 petition. Being an order issued in exercise of the discretion, we do not find any ground to interfere with that also. The writ appeal is hence dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns