A.A. Shukkoor vs The General Manager on 19 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23917 of 2007(V)


1. A.A. SHUKKOOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MANOJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, SC, BSNL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/10/2010

 O R D E R
                               S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                        ==================

                         W.P.(C).No.23917 of 2007

                        ==================

               Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010

                               J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification for appointment of franchisees

issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the petitioner applied.

The petitioner was the successful bidder. However, the petitioner could

not procure the show-room indicated in the tender documents, since

the owner of the rooms had some difference of opinion with the

petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, took on lease another shop room

and forwarded a lease deed of the same to the 2nd respondent for

approval. However, by Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent directed the

petitioner to show cause as to why the award of tender in favour of the

petitioner should not be cancelled, EMD should not forfeited and the

petitioner should not be black listed from participating in tenders for

franchiseeship for next two years. The petitioner challenges the said

proceedings seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Declare that there has been no violation of any of the conditions
of tender contained in Exhibit P2 merely for the reason that
petitioner has sought to change the venue of the show room of
franchisee awarded to the petitioner.

ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction or order
calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quashing the
same to the extend it declares that petitioner has violated
Clause 20.2 of Exhibit P2, by seeking a change in venue of the
show room for franchiseeship.

iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order commanding the respondents to permit the
petitioner to establish the show room of franchisee as prayed

w.p.c.23917/07 2

for in Exhibit P4.”

2. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P2 agreement there is no

condition that the petitioner shall not change the show room and

therefore on account of the fact that the petitioner has changed the

show room, the petitioner cannot be faulted.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents,

wherein they have taken the contention that the tender is location

specific and the petitioner’s tender has been evaluated on the basis of

the site plan for the show room proposed by the petitioner and,

therefore, the petitioner cannot seek change of the show room after

the award of tender. Therefore, they support Ext.P5 show cause

notice.

4. I have heard the parties on both sides.

5. I am inclined to accept the contention of respondents 1 and

2 that the tender being location specific, the petitioner cannot, after

his bid is accepted, change the location of the show room. As such, I

cannot find fault with respondents 1 an 2 in issuing Ext.P5 show cause

notice. However, I do not think that for the same, the petitioner should

be black listed insofar as it was not any deliberate act on the part of

the petitioner, but it was only because he had differences of opinion

with the owner of the original show room, he could not procure the

same. As such, while confirming the cancellation of the tender in

w.p.c.23917/07 3

favour of the petitioner, I direct that the petitioner shall not be

blacklisted on the said ground.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                            S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge