IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No.105 of 2008 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28348/2007 Dated 21/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT:- ---------------------------------------------- ANCHERIL AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TEEPEYEM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 033. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.) SRI.BABU PAUL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT:- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PEIRCE LESLIE INDIA LIMITED BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682003, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER K.P.A.RAUF. 2. LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, 27/1038 B, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 036 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR. R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 235 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.105 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No.235 of 2008-C ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The writ appeal is filed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28348 of 2007 dated 21st November, 2007. (2). By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the contract that was awarded to the appellant herein. (3). In W.P.(C). No.235 of 2008, Peirce Leslie India Limited has called in question the fresh tender notification issued by Lakshadweep Development Corporation Limited (“Corporation” for short) for awarding shipping agent contract. After filing the writ petition, an application I.A.No.1861/2008 for amendment is also filed by the petitioner. The respondent has no objection to allow the prayers made in the application. Therefore, the prayers made in the application is granted. (4). The learned Single Judge by his order dated 21st November, 2007 in W.P.(C) No.28348/2007 has set aside the award of contract to the second respondent pursuant to Ext.P4 notification on 21-9-2007. (5). The said contract that was awarded to the second W.A.No.105/2008 & W.P.(C) No.235/2008 -2- respondent by the first respondent Corporation was questioned by Peirce Leslie India Limited on the ground that the second respondent had not complied with the terms and conditions of the tender notification. (6). The learned Single Judge has accepted the stand of the petitioner and accordingly has set aside the contract that was awarded to the second respondent and has further observed that the first respondent shall proceed for engaging a new shipping agent in accordance with law. (7). After the disposal of the writ petition, the respondent has issued yet another tender notification for appointing shipping agents. That notification is the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.235 of 2008 filed by Peirce Leslie India Limited. (8). The matter was argued at length by learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. Sri.P.R.Ramachandra Menon, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that, after the disposal of W.P.(C) No.28348/2007, the Corporation has issued fresh tender notification inviting applications from persons desirous of being appointed as shipping agents. Pursuant to the said tender notification, the second respondent in the writ petition and other persons have filed their technical as well as financial bids and the same is not yet opened, in view of the pendency of the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. Learned counsel would further suggest that, even at this stage, if a direction is issued to the Corporation to issue a fresh tender notification inviting applications from persons desirous of being appointed as shipping agents, the Corporation would do so within the time W.A.No.105/2008 & W.P.(C) No.235/2008 -3- fixed by this Court. (9). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the contesting respondent has no objection to the suggestion made by Sri.P.R.Ramachandra Menon, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. (10). In view of the understanding between the parties, in our opinion, at this stage it may not be necessary for us to go into the merits or demerits of the case pleaded by the parties to the lis. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal and the writ petition as under: Order i). The writ appeal is disposed of without going into the merits or demerits of the case pleaded by the parties to the lis. ii). The Corporation is given liberty to issue fresh tender notification inviting applications to award the contract as shipping agents in the Corporation within 15 days time from today. The Corporation shall finalise the whole tender process within 35 days thereafter. Till then the interim arrangement made by the Corporation will continue. iii). The appellant, the contesting respondent and other persons are also permitted to participate in the tender notification that may be issued by the Corporation within the time granted by this Court. iv). All the other contentions of the parties are left open. (11). In view of the disposal of the writ appeal, in our opinion, nothing else survives for our consideration and decision in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as having become unnecessary. W.A.No.105/2008 & W.P.(C) No.235/2008 -4- (12). I.A.No.1862/2008 in W.P.(C) No.235/2008 and I.A.No.252/2008 in W.A.No.105 of 2008 are closed Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS