Allowed

Ashoken B. v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC7 Mar 2008WP(C)/5771/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the Panchayat resolution permitting a second tender and directed the Secretary to conduct an exclusive auction between the petitioner and the fifth respondent alone within seven days or before the financial year expires to award the work.

What did the court decide?

Quash Ext.P6 resolution; direct Secretary to conduct auction between petitioner and fifth respondent alone within seven days.

Ashoken B. Vs State of Kerala and Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶4

WP(C).No. 5771 of 2008(K) ------------------------PETITIONER: -----------ASHOKAN B., SARASWATHY VILASOM, RAMAPURAM, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE

¶6

SMT.MEERA GOPINATH

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE AMBOORI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, AMBOORI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

THE SECRETARY, AMBOORI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AMBOORI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, AMBOORI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AMBOORI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

CHANDRAN, PALLITHARA VEEDU, CHENAD, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY G.P. SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL (R2 & R3) SRI.S.VISHNU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) NO. 5771 of 2008 ---------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of March , 2008

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

In Ext.R3(a) the Assistant Engineer has stated that two options are available. The first option is re-tendering the work and the second is that if the Committee of the Panchayat is of the opinion that it is very unlikely that more than one tender will be received re-tendering can be avoided and tender can be confirmed at rates which will not cause financial loss. Ext.P7 guidelines will support the case of the petitioner that re-tender permitting the petitioner also to participate is the proper solution. But, as rightly pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat Sri.G.Sasidharan Chempazhanthiyil, the financial year is coming to a close and unless the work order is issued before 31.3.2008, funds stand the risk of being lapsed.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances which attend on this case, I am of the view that the Secretary of the

¶21

WPC No.5771/2008 2

¶22

Panchayat can be directed to conduct an auction in which the petitioner and the fifth respondent alone are permitted to participate. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P6 resolution of the Panchayat and direct the Secretary of the Panchayat to have auction between the petitioner and the fifth respondent alone at the earliest and at any rate within seven days of receiving a copy of this judgment. The person who is successful in the said auction will be given the work. Needful in this regard will be done at the earliest and at any rate before the financial year comes to a close.

¶23

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶24

dpk

Ashoken B. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashoken B. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Omana Ashokan Vs State of Kerala & Others

K.Maniyan Vs Kodamthuruthu Grama Panchayath

V.a.Muhammed Vs the Edavanakkad Grama Panchayat

Cyril Britto Vs Chacko Thomas

Biju Lal Vs the District Collector & Ors.

S.K.Hamza Haji Vs State of Kerala