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. 7703 of 2009(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- B. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. BHARGAVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, ASHOKA BHAVAN, ANIL AGENCIES, CHIRAYINKEEZHU ROAD, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.VENJARAMOODU..M.ZIYAD SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETRIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERIENTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, P.W.D DEPARTMENT, SERCRETRIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.. BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7703 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P1, in so far as it provides that tender schedule will be issued only to those who have a minimum of one year experience of the same nature of work( Toll Collection only) worth Rs.74.25 Lakhs, for a single work from 2000-2001 onwards. According to the petitioner, he was having contract during the year 1994-1995 and that said restrictive condition has been incorporated in favour of Smt. Sunitha Joy, whose name was mentioned in Exhibit P3. 2. A reading of Exhibit P1 tender notice itself show that the figure 74.25 Lakhs specified is the 50% of the approximate estimate cost mentioned in the document itself. It is also seen that this was the basis for Exhibit P2 tender notice was published on 3/02/200, concerning the previous year. If that be so, the tender condition appears to be that the experience prescribed should be that work worth at least 50% of the approximate estimate cost specified in the tender notice itself should have been executed by the tenderer. I see nothing illegal or arbitrary W.P.(C) No. 7703/ 2009 2 in such a condition. 3. Learned Government pleader also brought to my notice judgment of this Court in State of Kerala Vs.Anoop Kumar [2005(3) KLT 904], where provisions similar to one mentioned in this writ petition concerning a tender invited by the respondents has been upheld by this Court. I do not find anything to interfere with the tender notice. The writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm