IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7204 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.RELIANCE SECURITY AGENCY (REG.NO.2111) PREM BUILDING, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RAMESAN. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LIMITED, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LIMITED, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2009, THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.7204 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1, tender for supply of security guards were invited by the first respondent. According to him, he submitted his tender, taking into account the liability arising out of Ext.P4, the notification issued by the Central Government fixing the minimum wages that is payable. In this writ petition the prayer sought for is that the respondent should, while finalizing the tenders pursuant to Ext.P1take into account Ext.P4 also. 2. The respondents have filed a statement. According to them, what is applicable is the notification GO(Rt). NO.3243/01/Labour dated 30.10.2002 issued by the State Government. It is also stated that, if that is to be incorporated, the option available to them is to cancel WP(c).No.7204/09 /2/ Ext.P1 and invite fresh tenders. Although petitioner contends that what is applicable is Ext.P4 and not the notification dated 30.10.2002. I do not think it necessary to resolve that controversy in this writ petition. Now that the respondents themselves want to cancel Ext.P1 and go in for a fresh tender, this writ petition is disposed of recording the above statement. It is clarified that I have not dealt with the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P4 is what is applicable and not the notification dated 30.10.2002 referred to above. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.7204/09 /2/