Sreejith C. vs. State Of Kerala
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THUR AY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.16705 OF 2019(K) PETITIONER: SREEJITH C. THARAVATTATHU (H), PERUMBALOOR P.O, MUVATUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.SANDEEP GOPALAKRISHNAN SMT.JINNU SARA GEORGE SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN SRI.ANAND VIMAL SRI. ZAFAR ANTONIO RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, KERALA. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION,TRIVANDRUM-695001. 3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD SPECIAL BUILDINGS,SUB DIVISION, TB RD,THRISSUR,KERALA-680 001. 4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING DEPARTMENT,PWD,PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685603. BY SRI. VINOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 16705 of 2019 2 J U D G M E N T The fourth respondent has invited bids for sale of granite stones. The petitioner was the highest bidder. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner being the highest bidder, the granite stones were not sold to him. He therefore, seeks appropriate directions to the fourth respondent to sell the granite stones covered by the tender to him.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
Ext.P6 is the communication issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner in this connection. Ext.P6 indicates that the offer made by the petitioner is far less than the price of the material offered for sale and that the competent authority has, therefore, decided to re-auction the material after giving sufficient publicity.
It is trite that highest bidder in a tender process like the instant one has no right to claim that the material should be sold to him for the price offered by him. The
W.P.(C) No. 16705 of 2019 3 competent authority has all the right to cancel the tender if the desired price is not secured for the material. In the said view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. DK
W.P.(C) No. 16705 of 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE QUOTATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.2019. EXHIBIT P2OF THE EMD PAID FOR THE TENDER ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 19.01.2019 EVIDENCING THE AMOUNT QUOTED TOWARDS THE TENDER. EXHIBIT P3OF THE TENDER ACCEPTANCE LETTER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.01.2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE CHALLAN EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF THE QUOTED AMOUNT AND GST DATED 26.02.2019. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PWD BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT,PAINAVU,IDUKKI ON 22.03.2019. EXHIBIT P6OF THE REJECTION NOTICE FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.04.2019. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /// PA TO JUDGE DK
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.