IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No.597 of 2009 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7016/2009 Dated 05/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- M/S.STERICAT GUTSTRINGS (P) LIMITED, PLOT No.169 SECTOR-4, IMT-MANESAR, GURGAON, HARYANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, M.DHARMAPALAN, S/O.P.V.K.NAMBIAR, 44 YEARS. BY MR.P.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.M.AJAY, SC, KERALA MEDICAL SERV.CORPN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ Writ Appeal No.597 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7016/2009. The writ petitioner is one of the tenderers under the respondent for supply of drugs and supplies. The petitioner furnished Earnest Money Deposit only to the tune of Rs.30,000/- whereas under the tender conditions, it should be a minimum of Rs.30,000 but to the tune of 1% of the total bid amount. 2. Learned standing counsel for the respondent has made available a copy of the tender conditions. Prima facie, we do not find any provision to the effect that merely because EMD is insufficient, the tender is liable to be rejected. Whereas in several other situations, it has been provided that the tender is liable to be rejected. 3. However, in the nature of the order we propose to pass, we do not think that at this stage we should go into those aspects. The petitioner had in fact submitted Exhibit P5 W.A.No.597/2009 2 representation seeking for permission to cure the defect. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without any reference to Exhibit P5 representation. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the judgment under appeal and dispose of the writ petition directing the Managing Director of the respondent to consider Exhibit P5, with notice also to other bidders who have been provisionally selected as per Exhibit P4. A decision on Exhibit P5 shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the case and all the contentions are left open. This writ appeal is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE smp W.A.No.597/2009 3 KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. W.A. No. 597 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T 12.03.2009