IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2118 of 2011(L) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- N.V.RAJU, NJATTUTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY PO, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING OFFICER, KUTTANAD DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE, CHENGANNUR 689 121. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2118 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, a Government Contractor participated in a tender floated by the respondents by procuring the tender form, remitting a sum of Rs.26,000/-. But tender was not finalized because of the decision taken by the respondents holding that no requisite/ minimum number of tenderers had turned up pursuant to the notification. It was in the said circumstance, that the petitioner approached the respondents seeking to refund the value of the tender form which was not acceded to stating that the respondents were at liberty to retain the said amount as it was towards the cost of the tender form and if at all it was to be re-tendered, the petitioner could participate in the re-tender subject to purchasing fresh tender forms paying the tender cost stipulated in that regard. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the respondents in so far as there is an element of unlawful gain sought to be attained by the respondents. The petitioner has placed reliance on Ext.P2 judgment of this W.P (C) No. 2118 of 2011 2 Court, wherein, a similar circumstance was dealt with. However, taking note of the facts and circumstance in respect of the re-tender, which was already rescheduled, this Court directed the petitioner therein to take part in the re-tender by purchasing the tender form paying the cost stipulated and thereafter to have the value of the tender form in respect of the previous tender reimbursed. This Court does not find any reason to deviate; with regard to the declared right to have reimbursement in such circumstances. 3. In the said circumstances, Ext.P1 dated 22.11.2010 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to reimburse the cost of the tender form, as prayed for by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge