IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13884 of 2008(C)
1. M.N.DEVADAS, CONTRACTOR, SHYAM NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.13884 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a contractor. According to him, an amount
of Rs.7,70,892/- is due from the respondents for the contract
work executed by him as evidenced by Ext.P3. Now the 1st
respondent has invited tenders for various works as per Exts.P4
and P5 notices. The petitioner aspires to take part in the tender
proceedings for 15 works. For taking part in the tender
proceedings the petitioner has to pay EMD amounting to
Rs.7,50,000/-. According to the petitioner, since more amount
than the amount required for EMD is outstanding in his credit, the
petitioner is entitled to get that amount adjusted against the
EMD. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed
this writ petition seeking the following relief:
“‘i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to take
part in the tenders called for as per Exhibit P4 and P5 notices
without furnishing EMD and direct the respondents to adjust the
EMD amount from the amount due to the petitioner as certified
by Exhibit P3 letter.”
2. By the interim order dated 2.5.2008 this court passed
w.p.c.13884/08 2
the following order:
“There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the
tender submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 without
insisting for an earnest money deposit, on a provisional basis. If the
petitioner’s tender is otherwise eligible to be accepted, then it shall be
done only after getting orders from this court. But is made clear that
the order shall not stand in the way of tenders submitted by any other
person being processed and if the first respondent finds that the tender
by any other person is eligible to be accepted, it can be done and this
order shall not stand in the way of that. The direction to consider the
petitioner’s tender will be subject to further orders to be passed in this
writ petition.”
3. It is not disputed now before me that an amount
Rs.7,70,892/- is due to the petitioner from the respondents.
That being so, it is only just and proper that the said amount
shall be adjusted against the EMD required for the tenders
submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, if the amount payable to
the petitioner is sufficient to set off the EMD payable by the
petitioner, the same shall be so adjusted.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.13884/08 3