IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 W.A.No.1035 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).7941/2008-U, DATED 01/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- MRS.RAMLATH BEEVI, 'A' CLASS ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR, JUMRETH-A1 USTA, ALISSERI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1035 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. The Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited (“Corporation” for Short) had issued a tender notification, dated 31.01.2008, inviting tenders from competent contractors to execute the work that may be awarded by the Corporation. (2) In the tender notification so issued, there are two clauses, which requires to be noticed by us. They are Clauses 38 and 39. They read as under: “38. While awarding work, the credibility of the contractor, his performance in the execution of works awarded by the KLDC and his capacity to undertake and complete work of the specified amount will be ascertained. 39. The Tenderer shall produce a performance certificate issued by a competent authority now below the rank of a Superintending Engineer before finalizing tender formalities”. (3) Pursuant to the aforesaid tender notification, the petitioner had filed her tender forms, quoting, according to her, the lowest rates for item Nos.1 to 3 and 6 and 7 of the tender notification. (4) The Corporation, after receipt of the tender forms submitted by the petitioner, had sent a telegram to the petitioner, asking her to produce the Performance Certificate within three days. That is dated 23.02.2008. W.A.No.1035 of 2008 - 2 - (5) After receipt of the telegram from the awarder of the contract, the petitioner had produced certain certificates of some other authorities, other than the Corporation. Since the tender forms submitted by the petitioner was not in consonance with the tender notification issued by the Corporation, the Corporation, ignoring the tender forms submitted by the petitioner, has awarded the contract to yet another person. Aggrieved by the omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the Corporation, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.7941 of 2008. The learned Single Judge, by his orders dated 1st April, 2008, has rejected the writ petition. The correctness or otherwise of the said order is called in question by the petitioner in this appeal. (6) Clause 39 of the tender notification clearly stipulates, that, the person, who intends to participate in the tender process, has to produce a performance certificate issued by an officer, not below the rank of a Superintending Engineer of the Corporation. (7) However, Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit, that, Clause 39 would not specifically say, that, the certificate shall be issued by a Superintending Engineer of the Corporation and, therefore, the petitioner had produced some other certificates issued by various other authorities, to whom the petitioner had executed the works. (8) We have carefully perused Clause 39 of the tender notification and that clause requires to be complied by the tenderer and, if for any reason, the W.A.No.1035 of 2008 - 3 - tenderer fails to comply with that particular clause, the tender form submitted by him is an incomplete tender form. (9) In the instant case, as we have already noticed, pursuant to the tender notification issued by the Corporation, the petitioner had participated in the tender process; but had not produced the certificates as stipulated in Clause 39 of the notification. The Corporation, taking into consideration Clause 39 of the tender notification and also the certificates produced by the petitioner along with the tender forms, has, in our opinion, rightly rejected the offer made by the petitioner. (10) Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has, rightly, rejected the writ petition. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-