IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37050 of 2007(I)
1. S.S.BINU, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BINU AND
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, (CIVIL CONSTRUCTION)
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.37050 of 2007
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has sought for a direction to the second
respondent to accept Ext.P9 tender submitted by him in
response to Ext.P5 tender notice and to issue purchase order
from that basis. It is stated by the petitioner that although the
tenders received have been opened on 18.10.2007, a final
decision in the matter has not been taken. According to him, the
only intention of the respondents is to delay final decision in the
matter as there is a proposal to blacklist the petitioner. It is
stated that Ext.P7 show cause notice calling for explanation as
to why the name of the petitioner should not be blacklisted, was
issued on 12.11.2007, and that on receipt of Ext.P7, the
petitioner had submitted his explanation and that the matter has
not been finalised as on date. Petitioner submits that the
proposal for blacklisting can be no justification for refusing to
consider the tender that he has made. For this purpose, he is
relying on the judgment of this Court in Krishnan vs. State of
Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 499). The reading of the aforesaid
judgment shows that in an identical situation, it was argued that,
WPC37050/2007 2
a decision on a tender submitted was deferred due to the
pendency of a proposal to blacklist the petitioner therein.
However, examining this contention, this Court ordered that
proposal for blacklisting is not relevant while considering the
tender that was made. As on the date when issue came up for
consideration, since the petitioner was eligible, the tender made
by the petitioner it was directed that the tender should be
considered by the authority.
2. In this case even as on date, the proposal has not been
finalised and if the petitioner satisfied the tender condition and
the tender made by the petitioner is otherwise valid, the
respondents are bound to consider the tender submitted by the
petitioner.
3. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition
directing that the respondent shall consider the tenders received
in response to Ext.P5 tender notice and take a final decision in
the matter, which shall be done within a period of three weeks
from the date of production of a copy of this writ petition.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
csl