In a writ petition filed by a contractor challenging rejection of his tender for lack of qualification, the Court dismissed the petition because the relevant tender conditions were not produced before the Court and the tender procedure was already finalized by the time of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 7457 of 2009 (B)
PETITIONER :
C.VIJAYAN, CHANNETHODIYIL HOUSE, EDAYOOR NORTH, VALANCHERRY VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.7457/2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P.(C). No.7457 of 2009
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who is a contractor, filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order by which he was informed that he did not have the qualification as prescribed in Clause No.7.17.1.2 of tender conditions. Petitioner points out that exemption is available from prequalification in respect of all the works, cost of which is upto Rs.150 lakhs and therefore his tender was liable to be considered.
2
W.P.(C). No.7457 of 2009
absence of the relevant documents. Moreover the tender referred to in Ext.P3 would have finalised and work for which the tender was invited, would have completed by this time. Since there was no interim order, there was no impediment for finalization of tender as well as the completion of work.
In the above circumstances, petitioner does not deserve any relief. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS/26/07/2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's tender due to lack of prequalification deserves any relief.
C.Vijayan
Kerala Water Authority, Rep. by Its Managing Director
The Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority
The Superintending Engineer, P.H.Circle
P.V.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
