IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26135 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- S.S.BINU,PROPRIETOR,BINU AND COMPANY, PEZHUMTHURUTHU,PERUMON.P.O,KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. T.M.CHANDRAN MR. S.SUJITH MR. V.A.SASIDHARAN MR. JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF PURCHASE AND STORES, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(TECHNICAL),KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. BY STANDING COUNSEL MR. BABU JOSESPH KURUVATHAZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 26135 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF TENDER NOTICE DATED 6.8.2011. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.8.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER/ORDER DATED 26.8.2011 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.8.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.9.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER DATED 14.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 26135 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved of Ext. P3, whereby the request made by the petitioner to grant exemption with regard to the submission of samples in pursuance of tender floated by the respondent for supply of necessary items has been rejected. The case of the petitioner is that, he is an existing supplier of the materials to the respondent and that when the tender was invited, the petitioner could not submit the samples along with tender in tune with the tender notification. In the said circumstances, the petitioner procured the samples in respect of the some items and submitted the same stating that, the samples in respect of the other items would be produced as and when the samples were procured from the source elsewhere. After procuring the samples with regard to other items, the petitioner submitted the same along with Ext. P5, but by this time, the period to submit the samples was over. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the course pursued by the respondent is perfectly within the four walls of law and in tune with the tender notification and the W.P. (C) No. 26135 of 2011 : 2 : same is not assailable under any circumstances, more so, when the stipulations under the tender notification are not challenged. However, the learned standing counsel also submits that, as a matter of fairness and also considering the public interest at large, particularly the public money, since the petitioner happened to be the lowest tenderer in respect of the item Nos. 9, 10,12 and 13 of Ext. P1 tender, the respondent is ready to accept the tender floated by the petitioner in respect of the said items. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the respondent has taken a very reasonable stand. The challenge against Ext. P3 is not correct or sustainable. In the said circumstances, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of, recording the submission as aforesaid. Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd