IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 1958 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33743/2010 Dated 09/11/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- RAJESH VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 30 YEARS PWD CONTRACTOR, KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE, PLACHIKKARA P.O., VIA.PARAPPA, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671533. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGE (NORTH) CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 5. SREEKANDAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, LOTUS NIVAS, TEMPLE ROAD, ALAMIPALLY, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG-671 533. SR.G.P. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R1-R4 SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI FOR R5 SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1958 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the award of contract to the 5th respondent in preference to the appellant. The case of the appellant is that he being the lowest tenderer the work should be awarded to him. However, what is clear from the records and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is that award of contract got delayed and, therefore, the appellant himself changed the terms of his offer and he demanded rates applicable for 2010. However, the appellant was given one more opportunity to undertake the work at the rate applicable i.e the rate prevalent in 2009. Since the appellant did not accept, the 5th respondent, the second lowest tenderer, was asked to give proposal. He revised his rates at 24% above estimated rate of 2009, but agreed to execute the work at the rate prevalent in 2009. During hearing of the Writ Appeal, since the appellant maintained that the ultimate liability of the State will be 2 less if contract is awarded to him, we directed the Superintending Engineer to file a memo before this court. Government Pleader has filed a detailed statement on 14.2.2011 wherein the work is valued with reference to the quotation given by appellant and 5th respondent. The net result is that the offer made by the 5th respondent is less by Rs.73,91,448/- over the offer made by the appellant. In fact the contract is now going to be awarded to the 5th respondent for Rs.3,44,82,551/- whereas the appellant's offer is Rs.4,18,73,999/-. Based on the statement filed on behalf of the Superintending Engineer we dismiss the Writ Appeal but with specific direction to the Superintending Engineer to award the contract to 5th respondent for the amount of Rs.3,44,82,551/- without any provision for escalation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms