IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17325 of 2008(K)
1. ADITHYA SECURITIES LTD., REP. BY ITS
... Petitioner
2. MALANADU LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY,
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECRTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO
5. KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMEN LEGUE,
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/06/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 17325 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 11th June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners aspire to take part in the tenders quoted by the 1st
respondent for the purpose of engaging security guards in the offices
of the 1st respondent. The petitioners submit that they employ Ex-
servicemen recognised by Zila Sainik Board and therefore by virtue
of Ext. P2 as clarified by Ext. P3, their tenders are also eligible to be
considered. They would also submit that their rates are much lower
than those quoted in the tender accepted by the Board. The
petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs:
“(A) To call for the records leading to Ext. P2 and to quash the
same by issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ,
Direction or Order.
(B) issue a Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 to 3 to award the
tender No. 9/RSSD2/IDK/08-09, tender No. 10/RSSD2/IDK/08-09,
Tender No. 11/RSSD2/IDK/08-09, Tender No. 12/RSSD2/IDK/08-09
and Tender No. 2/AEE/RS1/IDR/08-09 to the petitioners.
(C) Direct the respondents not to finalize the tenders and further
not to award the tender to the 5th respondent since they quoted
above the estimate rate.”
2. The entire contentions of the petitioners are based on Ext.
P3. Even assuming that Ext. P3 can be applied without sanction of
the Government for which the Board has applied for, that can only be
in respect of Ex-servicemen Group Societies recognised by the Zila
Sainik Board. Admittedly, the petitioners are not societies recognised
by the Zila Sainik Board. That being so, even assuming that Ext. P3
applies, the tenders submitted by the petitioners are not eligible to be
considered. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.