Anandakumar vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26744 of 2007(H)


1. ANANDAKUMAR, KUMAR GARDENS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CONTROLLER OF STATIONERIES,

3. KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/11/2007

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC , J
               ==========================
                    W.P.(C). NO. 26744 OF 2007
               ==========================
              Dated this the 14th day of November, 2007.

                               JUDGMENT

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 and to

direct the respondents to accept the quotations submitted by the

petitioner in response to Ext.P1 notification and to award the contract

on that basis. The learned Government Pleader on instructions

submits that the petitioner did not comply with the tender conditions

and therefore the tender submitted by him was not considered. He

makes reference to Ext.P1 tender notice and submitted that as per

clause 5 of Ext.P1 the tenderers were to submit Earnest Money Deposit

in the form of cash payment, Demand Draft or Fixed Deposit Receipts.

He also submits that the petitioner had, as against these conditions of

the tender, submitted only bank guarantee. It is on that basis, his

tender was found to be defective.

2. On going through Ext.P1, I agree with the learned

Government Pleader that the Earnest Money deposit should be in the

form of either cash payment, Demand Draft or Fixed Deposit Receipt.

If the tender submitted by the petitioner was accompanied only by a

bank guarantee as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader,

there is non-compliance with the tender conditions. If that be so, the

W.P.(C) No. 26744/2007 : 2:

respondents were right in rejecting the offer made by the petitioner.

Since the tender was defective, there arise no question for entertaining

this writ petition or considering the reliefs that are sought for by the

petitioner.

The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

rv

W.P.(C) No. 26744/2007 : 3: