IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 814 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7968/2009 Dated 26/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ M/S. BHARAT BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD., GENOME VALLEY, TURKAPALLY, SHANEERPET, HYDERABAD - 500 078, ANDHRA PRADESH. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD., NRHM BUILDINGS, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.814 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd April, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.3.2009 in W.P.(C) No.7968/09. The subject matter pertains to the award of a contract for supply of medicines pursuant to Ext.P1 tender. As per Ext.P2, the tender submitted by the petitioner has been rejected and hence the Writ Petition was filed with the following prayers :- “(i) To quash Ext.P2, so far as it rejects the petitioner's tender for anti-rabies vaccine, by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (ii) Declare that the petitioner has qualified in the Technical Bid submitted by them before the 2nd respondent for their product anti-rabies vaccine for the year 2009-10. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the Price Bid opening of their products for the year 2009-10 and award the tender to them for the products quoted, if they become the Lowest Bidder. (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 within a time limit to be prescribed by this Hon'ble WA NO.814/09 2 Court.” 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on two grounds; (1) the affected parties are not on the party array and (2) the petitioner does not satisfy the tender conditions. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner satisfies the tender conditions and the affected parties need not be put on the party array at this stage since the petitioner is aggrieved only on account of rejection of the petitioner's tender. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this Writ Appeal, we do not think that we should go into the various contentions taken by the parties, or to the merits thereof. We find that the petitioner has filed Ext.P11 representation before the second respondent, aggrieved by the rejection of the tender as per Ext.P2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only appropriate that the second respondent considers Ext.P11 expeditiously with notice to the petitioner as well as the affected parties, if any. Therefore, we dispose of the Writ Appeal directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P11 with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and pass appropriate WA NO.814/09 3 orders thereon in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the Writ Appeal. The appellant/petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment and copy of the appeal memorandum before the second respondent immediately. We make it clear that in case no agreement has been executed in respect of the work sought to be awarded as per Ext.P1 as on today, further proceedings will be deferred till the representation is disposed of as above. It is also made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and the entire contentions are left open. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice. KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge. tgs S.R.BANNURMATH, C. J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.814 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 2nd April, 2009.