IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 7941 of 2008(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MRS. RAMLATH BEEVI, 'A' CLASS ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR, JUMRETH-A1 USTA, ALISSERI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.N. MOHANAN, R2 & R3 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7941 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Ext. P1 is a tender notice issued by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner had quoted for items 1 to 3, 6 and 7. Petitioner submits that she had received Ext. P2 telegram for production of certificate as required in the tender notice and that in response to Ext. P2, Ext. P3 was submitted by her. It was submitted that since there was no progress, she represented the matter by submitting Ext. P4. But, however according to the petitioner, she was informed that the tender is being awarded to some other contractor and therefore this writ petition has been filed. 2. On the directions of this Court counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has filed a statement. It is stated that in terms of clause 38 and 39, the credibility of the contractor, his performance in the execution of works awarded by the 2nd respondent and his capacity to undertake and complete the work will be ascertained. Clause 39 also provides that the tenderer shall produce a performance certificate issued by a competent authority not below the rank of a Superintending Engineer before finalizing tender formalities. It is W.P.(C) No. 7941 OF 2008 -2- stated that despite Ext. P2 telegram, the petitioner did not produce the certificate as required of her. That apart according to the respondents, performance was also reported to be unsatisfactory by the Construction Engineer of the 2nd respondent. Ext. R3(a) is the communication that has been received. It is also stated that the works in items 6 and 7 have been re-tendered to avoid the funds getting lapsed. 3. From the statement that is filed on behalf of the respondents it is obvious that the petitioner did not produce the documents as is required of the tenderers in terms of Ext. P1 tender notice. Her performance was also found to be unsatisfactory. In such a case and that too in the absence of any materials suggesting any malafides against the respondents, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with this matter. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-