Gaishu Sunil vs M/S.Bharath Petroleum … on 19 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29134 of 2009(J)


1. GAISHU SUNIL, AGED 33 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S.BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :19/01/2010

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C). No.29134/2009-J
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner herein submitted tender for

transportation of L.P.G from the bottling plant at Kochi

for a period of two years from 01/09/2009. The petitioner

had offered four packed L.P.G trucks for the said

operation. It is the case of the petitioner that she

received a letter dated 26/08/2009 from the first

respondent asking her to attend the direct negotiation

scheduled to be held on 28/08/2009 at 10.30 a.m. But, the

letter was received only on the same day, i.e. on

28/08/2009, at 2 p.m. In these circumstances, the

petitioner could no participate in the negotiations. She

submitted Ext.P2 representation seeking for a further

opportunity in the matter or to allot similar works on the

basis of the existing rates fixed by them.

2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondents, the stand taken in paragraph (4) is that the

tenderers were called for negotiation on various dates,

namely, 16/07/2009, 29/07/2009, 03/08/2009, 22/08/2009 and

28/08/2009. The petitioner participated only for the

negotiation held on 29/07/2009. The tenders were finalised

W.P.(C). No.29134/2009
-:2:-

on 30/08/2009 pursuant to the negotiation with the

tenderers and after opening of the credential bid and price

bid. The contracts were finalised and the tenderers have

commenced operations.

3. In the light of the above factual situation, this

Court may not be justified in directing the respondents to

allow the petitioner to participate in the tender which is

already over. But, what remains is the request made by the

petitioner in Ext.P2 to consider her tender if certain

works are available which are yet to be allotted to any of

the tenderers. Even though the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that by accepting her tender no harm

will be caused to the existing tenderers, the learned

counsel for the respondents submitted that without the

other tenderers in the party array, this Court may not be

justified in passing such an order. Hence, only if any

work other than those finalised are available, the request

can be considered. There will be a direction to the

respondents to consider Ext.P2 representation and if there

is any additional work available, the tender submitted by

the petitioner will be considered on such terms as may be

W.P.(C). No.29134/2009
-:3:-

fixed. Appropriate decision will be taken and a reply will

be given to the petitioner within a period of one month.

The tenders already finalised on 30/08/2009, will not be

re-opened.

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

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms