IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17624 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FLELIGER.W., STONE BELLS, HOSPITAL LANE, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FISHERIES AND HARBOUR (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, VISHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).17624/2009 ....................... Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT A work described as “Removal of collected sand from the entrance and Warf at fishing Harbour” was tendered by the Public Works Department in 2004. Petitioner quoted the highest rate at Rs.185.75/m3. Altogether 11 persons had participated in the tender. According to the petitioner, his offer being the highest, was accepted and his EMD alone was retained. The firm period of the tender, was later extended for successive three months periods, upto 11.9.2007 as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P12. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, he had expressed his willingness to keep his offer firm, as evidenced by Exts.P13 to P17. It seems that the work in question was not gone ahead with essentially because, there was some other work that had to be completed by the Department to facilitate excavation of sand from entrance and Warf. According to the petitioner, it is therefore, that an agreement was not executed and work commenced. But in 2009, Government took a decision for a re-tender, and this according to the W.P.(C).17624/09 2 petitioner, was illegal and brought about serious injustice to the petitioner. He therefore, represented to the Chief Secretary, and it seems that the file was then forwarded to the 1st respondent, the Additional Chief Secretary. Ext.P19 report has been submitted by the Chief Engineer to the Additional Chief Secretary as well. Though the writ petition has been filed inter alia praying for an order setting aside the proposal for re-tender of the work, in my view, interest of justice would be satisfied if, at this stage there is a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, Ext.P18, taking note of all relevant materials including Ext.P19, if it is found to be otherwise acceptable. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to look into Ext.P18 and take appropriate decision on the same, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition, before the 1st respondent for compliance. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs