K.H.Latheef vs Kerala State on 23 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9154 of 2009(L)


1. K.H.LATHEEF, AGED 45 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :23/03/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                 W.P.(C) NO. 9154 OF 2009 (L)
                =====================

            Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner’s grievance is against Ext.P2, a tender notice

published by the respondents inviting tenders for collection of

toll at the Kumbalam-Aroor Bridge.

2. Two contentions are raised. First was that the

publication of Ext.P2 notification was inadequate and according

to the petitioner, the notice was published only in Madhyamam

Daily.

3. The learned Government Pleader on instruction

submits that in addition to Madhyamam Daily, tender notice was

published in Kerala Koumudhi Daily and New Indian Express

Daily. This, therefore shows that the submission made by the

petitioner is factually incorrect.

4. Then, it was contended that the condition for

prequalification specified in Ext.P2 was arbitrary. Counsel

submits that the experience prescribed in Ext.P2 was that the

prospective tenderer should have undertaken a similar work, the

value of which is Rs.66,43,400/- in any one year within the

WPC 9154/09
:2 :

immediately preceding 7 years.

5. In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the

above prescription of experience. When a tender is invited, it is

up to the awarding authority to decide what are the

prequalification conditions to be incorporated in the tender

notice and unless there is anything malafide or arbitrary, this

Court will not be justified in interfering with such tender

conditions. Petitioner has not made out any such grounds

warranting interference with Ext.P2. Further, a tender condition

such as this, is intended to have response from experienced and

capable tenderers. Therefore, there is nothing invalid with this

condition either.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp