IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16374 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRADEEP KUMAR.K. S/O. K.BALAKRISWHNAN, THUNDIL HOUSE, KARIKKAMURI, ASSAN LANE, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SRI.SUNNY P MARKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS, HOSPITAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL,MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. SHAJI.P.A. PECKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. ZAKKIR HUSSAIN, MECHEIMYALIL, ADOO PARAMBU, MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. HUSSAIN, CHETTANPARAMBIL VEEDU, PARIYARAM.P.O. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 16374 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Respondents 1 to 3 invited tenders for running a Milma booth in the premises of the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital at Muvattupuzha. The petitioner quoted Rs.20,120/-, which has not been accepted. By Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that there were two other higher offers of Rs.30,000/- and 35,313/-, which are also not satisfactory to the 3rd respondent and, therefore, it has been decided to issue fresh notification inviting tenders. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Even after receiving Ext.P6 communication, the petitioner has started the writ petition with the averment that the petitioner is the highest bidder. In Ext.P6 communication it has been specifically stated that there were two other far higher offers for Rs.30,000/- and 35,313/-. In spite of the same, the petitioner has drafted the writ petition as if the petitioner is the highest bidder. The petitioner raises wild allegations against the 3rd respondent, none of which are supported by any prima face material. The petitioner has no case that the 3rd respondent has awarded tender to anybody. By Ext.P6, the petitioner has been informed that none of the tenders are acceptable 2 and therefore, he has decided to retender. There is no law which mandates that in every tender proceedings, the highest or lowest bid as the case may be, has to be mandatorily accepted. The State authority has a discretion to decide whether the highest or lowest offer is acceptable to them. If the same is not acceptable to them, they have a discretion to retender which only has been done in this case. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge