IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28574 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- OCHIRACKAL SADATH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.N.ISMAIL, NOORVILLA, KAYATH ROAD, TELLICHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.T.P.SAJID SMT.P.VANDANA SMT.P.S.MAHESWARI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THALASSERY DISTINATION MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THALASSERY-670101. 2. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, KANNUR-670001. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28574 OF 2010 (v) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T 1st respondent invited tenders for leasing out a Restaurant, Pay and Use Toilet and parking area in the Sea View Park at Thalasserry. Petitioner and another person submitted their tenders. According to the petitioner, his offer was the higher one. It is stated that though negotiation was also held, contract was not awarded. Petitioner submits that, while matters stood thus, respondents have published retender notice without cancelling the first tender in which he was the higher bidder. It is complaining of the retender the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the learned Government Pleader, although in the first tender, petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs.12,500 per month, the 1st respondent found the offer unacceptable. Therefore, the 1st respondent decided to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders. Accordingly, 1st respondent retendered it once, when there was no response. Therefore, the second retender was issued. It is stated that in response to the second retender notice, six offers were received and the last date WPC No. 28574/10 :2 : for receiving the retender is today. 3. Thus from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is therefore obvious that, for the reason that the offer made by the petitioner was not acceptable to it, the 1st respondent cancelled the tender. When a tender is invited and the offer received is unacceptable for any reason to the awarder, the awarder is always at liberty to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders. This precisely is what has been done by the 1st respondent in this case. Unless such a decision is shown to be vitiated for malafides, in such commercial matters, this Court will not interfere. No such vitiating circumstances have been made out in the case. Petitioner also has no case that contract was awarded in his favour. Unless a contract has been awarded, petitioner cannot also complain that due to the decision to cancel the tender, any of his rights have been infringed. For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner cannot successfully resist the retender that has been issued. 4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks an opportunity to submit his tender in response to the retender notice now issued. I heard the learned Government on this request. Having regard to WPC No. 28574/10 :3 : the fact that the petitioner has been prosecuting his claims, it is directed that if the petitioner submits his tender before 12 noon on 17/9/2010, the 1st respondent shall accept the tender and consider the same along with other tenders received. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp