IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3613 of 2011(B)
1. M/S.MALABAR ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
4. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/02/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 3613 of 2011 B
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a partnership firm which has obtained
A Class registration with the Public Works Department.
Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the first respondent inviting
pre-qualification bids for the works mentioned therein. This
notification, inter alia, provides that concession which is
allowed to the Kerala State Construction Corporation and
Labour Contract Co-operative Societies as per Rules in force
will be applicable. According to the petitioner, such a
provision in Ext.P1 has been made on the basis of Exts.P2
and P3, which are Government Orders dated 28-04-1988 and
07-08-1997 respectively, which provide for a price preference
of 10% in favour of the fourth respondent, a Government
Company.
2. Petitioner impugns the validity of Exts.P2 and P3
and the aforesaid provision of Ext.P1. According to the
petitioner, this provision is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)
W.P.(C) No.3613/2011
: 2 :
of the Constitution of India.
3. In my view, the Government being the awarder of
contract, it is also open to the Government to frame a policy
providing for price preference in favour of the institutions such
as Government Companies like the fourth respondent and if
such a price preference is provided, there cannot be any
invalidity as sought to be made out by the petitioner. This
issue is covered by the Apex Court judgments in Krishnan
Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala and others [1997 (9)
SCC 495], Harminder Singh Arora Vs. Union of India and
others [1986 (3) SCC 247], Madhya Pradesh Ration
Vikrata Sangh Society and others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and another [1981 (4) SCC 535] and also a Division
Bench judgment of this Court reported in Biodigital (P) Ltd.
Vs. State of Kerala and Others [ILR 2010 (4) Ker 462].
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks