IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9289 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KEVEEYAM FUELS (1242), (INDIAN OIL CORPORATION DEALER) PATTAMBI ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SRI.M.C.BALAN. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. REP. BY ITS MANAGER (OPERATIONS) 2. THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC, IOC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9289 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a dealer for fuels under the Indian Oil Corporation, had responded to a tender called for by the Corporation, as per Exhibit P1 dated 19.12.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner engaged an agent to participate in the tender notified to be held on 21.12.2009. Because of the taxi and auto strike on that day, the representative of the petitioner reached the office of the respondents only at 3.02 p.m. By that time the tender was closed. Therefore, the application could not be submitted in time. Later a representation was filed as per Exhibit P2. 2. It is pointed out that even though the tender was closed on 21.12.2009, the same has not been opened so far. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to accept the tender application of the petitioner before the tender held on 21.12.2009 is finalized. W.P.(C) No.9289/2010 2 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is pointed out that the petitioner has approached this Court only after three months. It is, therefore, pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. It is further submitted that further action on the tenders could not be finalized in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in another writ petition. It is also submitted that the delay is fatal. 4. The only difficulty for the petitioner was that the tender was submitted two minutes after the fixed time. An identical issue was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2043/2010 where the delay was 20 minutes which occurred in similar circumstances. This Court followed the dictum laid down in Krishnankutty vs. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee (1998 KHC 585) wherein it was held that the submission of the tender accompanied by the bank draft can be treated as sufficient compliance. It was also found therein that the submission of the tender at 3.20 p.m cannot be said to be fatal. W.P.(C) No.9289/2010 3 Therefore, in the light of the above dictum laid down by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. As the tender and the further proceedings are yet to be finalized, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner if the same is otherwise in order. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp