IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14536 of 2011(N) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- ANILKUMAR M.K., P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, MARIYAMKANDI HOUSE, EDAKKAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS & BRIDGES AND ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGES, NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 14536 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ONLINE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 21-3-2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE TENDER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14-04-2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE FRESH ONLINE NOTIFICATION DATED 26-05-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).14536/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 re-tender notification by the respondent, Department stating that, the rate quoted by the petitioner in response to an earlier tender notified as per Ext.P1 was much higher and in turn to have re-tender. 2. The case of th petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that merely since the petitioner happened to be the sole tenderer in response to Ext.P1, it is not a ground to have re- tender and that the third respondent respondent ought to have invited the petitioner for negotiation, before the re-tender was ordered. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the rate quoted by the petitioner was 35% more than the PAC and as such, the respondents had to notify the same inviting tenders afresh and that there is absolutely no mala fides in this regard and that the attempt was only to save the public money. W.P.(C).14536/11 2 Obviously there is no plea of any mala fides. This Court finds that there is no vested right upon anybody to contend that even if his tender happens to be the lowest, the same shall be accepted; which is the law declared by the Apex Court in this regard. This being the position, there is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the challenge raised. No interference is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs