High Court Kerala High Court

A.Vignesh vs Chairman & Managing Director Of … on 15 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
A.Vignesh vs Chairman & Managing Director Of … on 15 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7794 of 2010(Y)


1. A.VIGNESH, S/O.P.K.ARUMUGHAM, MANAGER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSRTC,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.DINESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :15/03/2010

 O R D E R
               T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
            ------------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.7794 of 2010
            ------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the Manager of the K.V.R. Enterprises

which conducts business of Foam business and P.U.Moulded

cushions in the name and style of K.V.R. Enterprises. The

company is based on Karur, Tamil Nadu District.

2. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the tender notice issued by

the respondent for supply of various type P.U.Moulded seat

cushion. Exhibit P2 is another tender notice dated 16/12/2009

for supply of P.U.Moulded cushions of different sizes for

seat/back rest of K.S.R.T.C Buses. According to the petitioner,

he did not submit these tenders because the specifications

shown in the tenders are highly impracticable and not

profitable. It is in these circumstances, after filing a

representation this writ petition has been filed.

3. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that

pursuant to the tender notification they have received three

tenders and the matter is now pending finalisation and orders

are expected to be issued within a short time.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

W.P.(C)Nos.7794 of 2010
2

that he could not submit the tender in the light of the

particulars and specifications shown in Exts.P1 and P2.

5. Since the petitioner has not responded to the tender

notices the only remedy is to pursue his grievances before the

authorities for consideration in future. Writ petition is

therefore closed, leaving open the contentions of the

petitioner.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

skj