IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12688 of 2009(E)
1. SHAJI THOMAS, PULINTHANATHU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. MANOJ SKARIA, AYYIKKAL HOUSE,
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :01/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).12688/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 notification was issued by the
respondent herein inviting tenders for the work
namely “construction of the District Collectors
Bungalow at Painavu, Idukki.”. Petitioners
obtained tender forms on 15.4.2009 and as per the
notification, the last date for receipt of the tender is
4.00 pm on 16.4.2009. They had delivered the
tender forms for despatch to the tendering
authority on 15.4.2009 itself and in the normal
course, same would have reached the respondent
before 4.00 pm on 16.4.2009. It so happened that
at the last moment the postal department declared
16.4.2009 as a holiday, in connection with the
polling to the Lok Sabha held on the same date. It
is the admitted case that when the last date for
receipt of tenders is declared as a holiday or
happens to be a holiday, then the last date for
receipt of tenders would automatically stand
W.P.(C).12688/2009
2
extended to the next working day. It is therefore,
not disputed by the respondent that if the tenders
had been delivered by 5.00 pm on 17.4.2009 then
respondent would have treated the same as one
received in compliance with the tender notification.
Paragraph 2 and 3 of the statement, filed by the
respondent read as follows:-
In the particular case only two
persons namely Sri.Shaji Thomas and
Sri.Manoj Scaria has purchased the
tender documents from this office and
the above two persons posted the
tender by speed post on 15.4.2009.
Even though the last date fixed for the
receipt of the tender document was on
16.4.2009, due to election
proceedings this date was declared as
public holiday. Automatically the next
working day, ie., 17.4.2009 became
as the last date for the receipt of the
tender documents.
The tender documents were
received in this office only on
W.P.(C).12688/2009
3
18.4.2009, ie., after one day fixed for
the receipt of tender documents. Post
tender relaxation is not permitted due
t this and tenders received from Shaji
Thomas and Manoj Scaria were not
considered and not opened. No steps
have been taken to cancel the tender
notification and to re-tender the work.
it is submitted that the department has
no objection to accept these two
tenders if court direct accordingly as
the persons who purchased the tender
documents had submitted their offer.
There will be no chance for any other
claim in this regard.
2. Obviously, it was open to the respondent to
have treated the receipt of tenders as beyond the
time mentioned in the tender notification, even if in
the normal practice of extending the last date for
receipt of tenders by one day, was adopted in the
present case. But I take note of the fact that the
petitioners alone had purchased the tender forms
within the last date stipulated. In other words,
W.P.(C).12688/2009
4
petitioners alone had responded to the tender
notification. In the normal course of the
proceedings, despatch of the tender forms on
15.4.2009 would have ensured delivery within the
time stipulated in the tender notification. In these
circumstances, especially taking note of the fact
that nobody else had responded to the tender
notification and going by the statement filed by the
respondent, which does not contain any objection in
considering the tenders that had been received by
him, I am of the view that the respondent shall
proceed to consider the tenders submitted by the
petitioners as having been received within the time
stipulated. He shall then proceed to process the
same in accordance with its terms and conditions. I
make it clear that the direction is intended only to
require the respondent to treat the tenders as
having been received in time and this direction
need not be treated as an expression of opinion of
this Court either as to the merits of the tender or as
W.P.(C).12688/2009
5
one requiring the tender processing authority to
necessarily accept the tender of any one of these
persons. Further it would be open to the
respondent to take such steps as are necessary by
way of re-tender, if it is felt that more offers are
desirable.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs