Disposed

Jiljith.C.v v. Director

Kerala HC25 May 2012WP(C)/6742/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Writ Petition against the Director and Port Officer challenging a tender releasing order was disposed of without arguments. The Court observed that the petitioner had withdrawn pressing for reliefs and directed the parties to approach the respondent directly to claim the return of the Earnest Money Deposit.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to send a request for return of Earnest Money Deposit to the First Respondent within two weeks along with a copy of the judgment. Court assured steps for deposit return and bla

Jiljith.C.v Vs Director — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2012/4TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6742 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JILJITH. C.V, S/O.LATE C.V.RAMDAS, PROPRIETOR, VISMAYA DISTRIBUTORS, 19/2026, A-20 INDUS AVENUE BUILDING, CHALAPURAM P.O., KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002, RESIDING AT 14/483, CHEMBATTIVALAPPIL HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KALLAI P.O., KOZHIKODE-3.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM, SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN, SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN, SMT.USHA NARAYANAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DIRECTOR, (PORT, SHIPPING & AVIATION), UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,

¶11

DIRECTORATE OF PORT, SHIPPING & AVIATION,

¶12

KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 555.

¶13

2. THE PORT OFFICER,

¶14

BEYPORE PORT, KERALA PORTS DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673 015.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 6742 of 2012 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PORT SHIPPING AND AVIATION, ALONG WITH THE TENDER CONDITIONS.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE RELEASING ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE COVER IN WHICH EXHIBIT P2 LETTER WAS SENT.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE COVER IN WHICH EXHIBIT P4 LETTER WAS SENT.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.R1A	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR CONDEMNATION OF UNSERVICEABLE BARRELS/STORES.
EXT.R1B	COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF QUOTATION NO.86/1/2010-SHIPPING (S) DATED 28/01/2012.
EXT.R1C	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/03/2012 SUBMITTED BY STAR BARRELS.
EXT.R1D	COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY SENIOR PORT CONSERVATOR, BEYPORE.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶28

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 6742 of 2012-P

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P2

¶32

and P4 in so far as it stipulates the number of barrels in lot No.2 as 1200 instead of 2600 barrels. The circumstances under which the petitioner has approached this Court, is the following:

¶33

The petitioner was the successful bidder in respect of the tender invited for the sale of unserviceable empty MS Barrels and obsolete, unserviceable general store and engine spare parts. As a person doing business in ferrous and non ferrous scrap materials, the petitioner had participated in the tender. According to the petitioner, after inspection of the area, it was found that there are 1200 barrels kept at the Silk Yard mentioned as Lot No.1 and there are 2600 barrels in the Beypore Port yard mentioned as Lot No.2. Accordingly, the amounts were quoted and he was the successful tenderer for Lot No.2. The first respondent issued a Release Order as per Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 is the cover in which it was sent by speed post. According to the petitioner, therein, the number of barrels was

¶34

W.p(c). No.6742/2012

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

mentioned only as 1200 as against 2600 barrels. It is at that stage the petitioner contacted the first respondent and intimated him about the mistake. But the first respondent again directed the petitioner to pay the tender amount within two days.

¶37

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein various details with regard to the tender submitted by the petitioner and others have been stated. It is pointed out that nine firms had responded to the notification and quoted rate for the purpose of empty barrels separately stored at Beypore as Lot Nos.1 and 2. It is also submitted that the quantity of barrels in Lot Nos.1 and 2 are 1200 each. The respondents have denied the averment of the petitioner in respect of the total quantity of barrels.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the present scenario, the petitioner is not interested in executing the work and that he may be allowed to be exonerated from the obligations of the tender and the Earnest Money Deposit made by him may be directed to be returned. Learned counsel also prayed that the petitioner may not be blacklisted.

¶39

Since the petitioner is not pressing for the reliefs, it is upto him to submit a proper request before the first respondent to get the Earnest Money Deposit returned and if a request is submitted within two weeks along with

¶40

W.p(c). No.6742/2012

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

a copy of this judgment, due consideration will be made by the first respondent in the matter. Appropriate steps will be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the return of the Earnest Money Deposit and with regard to the apprehension that he will be blacklisted.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶44

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶45

kav/

Jiljith.C.v v. Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiljith.C.v v. Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.a.Ajith Vs Sri.K.K.Monudeen

Jamal A.M. Vs Shri.K.Ajayakumar

Pheba K.David Vs the Director of Public Instructions

Jinanbala M.S Vs P.S. Muhammed Sagir

Nithin Raju Vs the University of Kerala

Suni Vs the District Collector, Kollam