IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33976 of 2010(V)
1. E.Y.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. YOUSUF LABBA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION
4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 33976 of 2010 V
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Respondent invited tenders for executing
maintenance work at different stations. Among the tenders
that were received in response thereto, the tender submitted
by the petitioner was the lowest. Subsequently, the fourth
respondent decided to cancel the tender and to re-tender the
work. It is this decision of the fourth respondent that is
challenged in this writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that in the tender notification itself, the respondents had
reserved their right to accept or reject any tender that is
received by them and also to cancel the tender notice itself. It
is stated that although the petitioner’s tender was the lowest,
on examination of the bids, they were satisfied that even the
lowest rate quoted was exorbitant. According to the
W.P.(C) No.33976/10
: 2 :
respondents, it was for that reason they decided to cancel the
tender and to re-tender the work.
3. Respondents having invited the tenders, it was
always open to them to cancel the same also, provided the
said decision is the bonafide one. On facts, it is specific case
of the respondents that the lowest rate offered was exorbitant
and it was for that reason they cancelled the tender. There is
nothing to conclude that the said decision is not a bonafide
one. Therefore, the said decision is liable to be upheld and I
do so. However, I record the submission of the respondent
that in the subsequent tender, the petitioner can participate on
the same EMD that the petitioner has already deposited.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge