Disposed

Mansoorali v. the Administrator

Kerala HC28 Mar 2022WP(C)/8357/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a service tender was disposed of without adjudication. The court directed the Director of Port Shipping and Aviation to consider the petitioner's representation within six weeks after giving him a hearing. The petitioner was also instructed not to cancel the petitioner's tender award pending this decision.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 representation within six weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing; the tender awarded to the petitioner shall not be cancelled pending decision.

Mansoorali Vs the Administrator — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8357 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MANSOORALI
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.SIRAJ, PALLIPURAM HOUSE, CHETLAT ISLAND,
U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682 554.
BY ADV R.RAMADAS

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE ADMINISTRATOR,

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PORT SHIPPING AND AVIATION, KAVARATTI, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682 555.

¶11

3 THE COLLECTOR - CUM-DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (SECRETARY, TRANSPORT) U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KARAVATTI, PIN - 682 555.

¶12

BY ADV SAJITH KUMAR V.- R1 TO R3

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 8357 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 28^th day of March , 2022

¶18

The petitioner, who had undertaken the contract of “loading/unloading and Stevedoring and other works of Ships owned and chartered by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration for Chetlat Island and other Islands under the Union Territory of Lakshadweep”, prays that the respondents be directed to award the work to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P2 tender submitted by the petitioner at the estimated value of contract fixed in Ext.P1 notification.

¶19

The learned Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. It was submitted that Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner has been received by the respondents. The said representation can be considered in accordance with law.

¶20

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that no adjudication of the issues involved in the writ petition is

¶21

WP(C) NO. 8357 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

necessary at this stage by this Court. As Ext.P4 representation is pending consideration, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶24

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner and take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner either through physical mode or through video conferencing. The petitioner submits that he has been continuing the work of loading and unloading the Chetlat Island. Therefore, till a decision is taken on Ext.P4, the respondents shall not cancel the tender awarded to the petitioner.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO. 8357 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8357/2022

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
TENDER NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN FEBRUARY,
2021 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE
LOADING/UNLOADING AND STEVEDORING AND
OTHER WORKS OF CARGO AND PASSENGERSHIPS
IN CHETLAT ISLAND.

¶34

Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT
DATED 10/09/2021.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09/03/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

¶35

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS NIL

Mansoorali v. the Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoorali v. the Administrator

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

Sebastian Thomas Chiramel Vs State Bank of India SBI

Saleema Vs Arun Kumar B.

Ragsippi v.I., Vs State of Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Sericulture Co-Op. Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Neyyattinkara Taluk Sericulture Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Kumarkom Aquaserene Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation