IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 646 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.263/2009 Dated 13/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT: -------------- A.GOPALAKRISHNAN, WASTEPAPER MERCHANT THENCHERIL, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVALLA. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.646 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant is aggrieved by the cancellation of tender invited by the respondents for disposal of waste paper accumulated at Thiruvalla Depot. The work was awarded to the writ petitioner at the highest rate quoted for Rs.4.69 per kg. The learned single Judge took note of the background of the cancellation to the effect that there were complaints regarding the inadequacy of publicity which led to a finding that on account of that the work happened to be awarded at deplorably low rates. Thus the writ petition was dismissed. It is the contention of the appellant that by the time steps were taken for cancellation of the work, the appellant had in fact done part of the work incurring heavy expenditure. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the market rate is around Rs.8/- per kg. and the work happened to be awarded to the writ petitioner at Rs.4.6 per kg. only because of the low publicity that was given to the tender. It is also brought to our notice that in W.A.No.646 of 2009 -:2:- other depots the contemporaneous rate is, in any case, above Rs.6/- per kg. Having regard to the consideration and exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge we do not think it necessary to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The cancellation of the work was for justifiable reasons. However, in view of the submission that the appellant had incurred heavy expenditure it is only appropriate that the same is reimbursed by the first respondent. Therefore, while dismissing the writ appeal we make it clear that the first respondent shall reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the appellant/petitioner for the work he had already done after the award of the work, till the cancellation of the work. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a request for the same from the appellant. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge ahg. S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. --------------------------- W.A.No.646 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 6th April, 2009