IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 35473 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALIPH ADVERTISING GROUP, KALLUPURACKAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, HAMEED ALI SHEMNAL, MALAYIL HOUSE, VELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. M/S.SHA ADVERTISERS, NEAR OVER BRIDGE, PATTURACKEL, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., TRISSUR-22. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1,2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1,2 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.35473 of 2009 (D) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The respondent Municipality invited tenders for beautification of the Thirunakkara Maidan. In response to the first tender notice, there was no bidders, as a result of which, on 15/09/2009, the Municipality invited fresh bids. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 offer. It is stated that the bids received in response to the re-tender notice issued on 15/09/2009 were opened on 13/10/2009 and out of the five tenders that were received, the offer made by the petitioner was the highest. 2. However, without confirming the tender in favour of the petitioner, the Municipality published Ext.P3 notice inviting fresh bids. It is stated in Ext.P3 that as against the originally proposed two year period the Municipality had decided to increase the contract period to five years. Objecting to Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4, and thereafter approached this Court by filing WP (C) No.32810/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 WP(C) No.35473/2009 -2- judgment, leaving it open to the petitioner to make his offer in response to Ext.P3 and leaving open the contentions raised in that writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 offer on 16/11/2009, the amount offered by the petitioner was Rs.9,47,160/-. Exts.R1(d), R1(e) & R1(f) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality are some of the other offers that were received. The bids were opened on 18/11/2009 in the presence of the Officers of the Municipality and the bidders. When the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent had offered Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.32,000/- towards the advertisement tax, according to the petitioner, on 18/11/2009 itself he submitted Ext.P7 offering Rs.27 lakhs and also Rs.35,000/- towards advertisement tax. It is stated that, that offer was not accepted by the Municipality. 4. Subsequently, from Ext.P8, the petitioner came to know that the Municipality decided to confirm the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed praying for a declaration that the petitioner is the highest bidder and on that basis, to direct the Municipality to accept Ext.P7 offer WP(C) No.35473/2009 -3- submitted by him and confirm the tender in his favour. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality, what they submit is that in Ext.P3, the last date specified for submission of the bids was 16/11/2009. It is stated that in response to Ext.P3, the petitioner offered Rs.9,47,160/- whereas the 3rd respondent had offered Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.32,000/- towards advertisement tax. It is stated that the offer made by the 3rd respondent was the highest. The Municipality has specifically denied the averment of the petitioner that they have submitted Ext.P7, the revised offer allegedly made. It is stated that the last date having been fixed in the tender notice as 16/11/2009, it was also not open to the petitioner to have made a revised bid after 16/11/2009, when he came to know of the offers made by other tenderers. It is therefore that the Municipality submits that they have resolved to confirm the tender in favour of the highest tenderer, the 3rd respondent. The case of the petitioner is that in view of Ext.P7 he is the highest bidder. True, if Ext.P7 was accepted, his offer would have been for Rs.27 lakhs, in which event his offer would have been higher than that of the 3rd respondent. The question is whether the petitioner had made Ext.P7 revised offer. The petitioner has not WP(C) No.35473/2009 -4- produced any document to show that Ext.P7 was submitted. On the other hand, the Municipality in paragraph 11 of its counter affidavit, is categoric in its contention that Ext.P7 was never submitted by the petitioner. According to the Municipality, it is a fabricated document so as to make it appear that he made a revised offer. In the light of the assertions made by the petitioner and its denial by the Municipality and in the absence of any other document available on record, this Court will not be justified in accepting the plea of the petitioner of having made Ext.P7 offer. In such a situation, this Court cannot also say that the offer made by the 3rd respondent was lower and ought not have been accepted. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that he was the highest bidder cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the petitioner allegedly made the revised offer after the last date specified for submission of bids and that too, after coming to know of the rate quoted by the 3rd respondent. Even if a bid was submitted by the petitioner, I do not think that the Municipality had any obligation to accept the same. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg