IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4506 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P. BHASKARAN, PWD CONTRACTOR, PULLANIKKATTIL HOUSE, KODUMUNDA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679303 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. EXECITIVE ENGINEER, LSGD,DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD. 2. DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4506 OF 2010 (K) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a PWD contractor, who claims to have responded to the tenders invited by the respondents for the balance building work in the Kodumunda Higher Secondary School. According to the petitioner, although his was the lowest quotation, the respondents refused to accept the tender and on the other hand cancelled the tender and have decided to re- tender the work. It is stated that such decision has been taken in December, 2009. Petitioner states that aggrieved by the said decision, he has filed a representation and that even the representation is not considered. It is therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as a matter of fact, the petitioner's grievance is against the decision of the Panchayat in cancelling and retendering the work for which he had made his bids, the remedy available to the petitioner was to have pursued the appellate remedies against the said decision of the Panchayat, which does not appear to have been done by the petitioner. On the other WPC 4506/10 :2 : hand, after making a non statutory representation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. When the statutory remedies are available, I see absolutely no reason to permit the petitioner to bypass those statutory remedies and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed, however making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his other remedies against the decision. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has not served on the petitioner a copy of the decision cancelling the tender. If that be the factual situation, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall furnish a copy of the decision taken by the respondents on the tender submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp