IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31505 of 2011(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S/ MANAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, NO.5.GANESHA BHAVAN, S.V. LANE, 3RD CROSS CHICKPET BANGALORE-560053, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.B.SURENDRA SHIYAL, S/O.LATE BAWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ENGG - ELECT) AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVNDRUM AIR PORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008. 2. THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION, AAI, CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CHENNAI-600027. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC., AAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 31505/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 17/01/2011. P2: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 10/02/2011. P3: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING PRE QUALIFICATION DATED 06/02/2011. P4: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING PRE QUALIFICATION DATED 16/03/2011. P5: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04/04/2011. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31505 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exts.P1 and P2 are tender notices issued by the respondents inviting tenders. In response to notices, the petitioner submitted its tender. To prove satisfaction of the tender conditions, petitioner had produced Exts.P3 and P4 certificates. 2. At a later stage, respondent issued Ext.P5 show cause notice to the petitioner in which, it was alleged that Bagalkot Town Development Authority had confirmed that Ext.P3 certificate was not issued by them. On this basis petitioner was called upon to show cause why action shall not be taken for forfeiture of EMD and debarring/Blacklisting from future tendering with the respondents. 3. On receipt of the show cause notice, petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply, where they reiterated that Ext.P3 W.P.(C) No. 31505 OF 2011 :2 : was issued by the aforesaid authority itself. The respondents considered the matter and issued Ext.P10 order, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and debarring the petitioner. Petitioner challenged Ext.P10 by filing Ext.P11 appeal before the Chairman of the Airport Authority, who by Ext.P9 order rejected the appeal. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings this writ petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel Sri.V. Santharam for Airport Authority of India. 5. As already seen, the allegation raised in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was that Ext.P3 document produced by them to prove that they had satisfied the requirements prescribed in Exts.P1 and P2 tender notices were not genuine. In the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause, apart from reiterating its W.P.(C) No. 31505 OF 2011 :3 : contention that the document was genuine and producing the original thereof, the petitioner did not produce any document issued by the Bagalkot Town Development Authority, confirming to have issued Ext.P3 certificate It was in such circumstances the respondent rejected the petitioners contention and confirmed the proposal contained in Ext.P3 show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had other documents to show that the certificate was in fact issued by the aforesaid Authority and that neither the original authority nor the appellate authority afforded them an opportunity of hearing. According to him if such an opportunity was given, they could have produced the documents. In my view, if the petitioner had any document to prove its case, petitioner should have either produced it when reply to the show cause notice was filed or at a later stage, which was not done. At least they could have asked W.P.(C) No. 31505 OF 2011 :4 : for an opportunity of hearing so that the document could have been produced. This was not done by them. Further neither in Ext.P5 reply to the show cause notice nor in Ext.P11 appeal, did the petitioner ask for any such opportunity for production of document or for hearing. Apart from all these, no such document has been produced before this court also and to the question whether such document could be produced before this court also, the answer was in the negative. In such circumstances I am not persuaded to think that the respondent should be faulted for the action it has taken. Therefore the writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge