RAJESH VARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to a tender invited by the fourth respondent for the construction of a bridge, petitioner submitted his tender. His offer was 7.5% below the PAC. According to the petitioner, the offer made by the fifth respondent was 35% above the PAC. On account of litigations which came to be instituted in the meanwhile, further proceedings got delayed. IN any case, later, when the petitioner was asked his willingness to execute the work, he submitted Ext.P4 claiming enhancement of rates. Thereupon, respondents ascertained willingness of the other tenderers and the fifth respondent expressed his willingness to undertake the work. Accordingly, negotiation was held and the petitioner states that the fifth respondent reduced his offer from 35% above the PAC to 24% above the PAC. Work is now proposed to be awarded. Objecting to the above, petitioner submitted representation. Response was not forthcoming. Therefore, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) DESPITE the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not in a position to find fault with the respondents. As already seen petitioner made his offer and quoted his rates. When his willingness was asked for, he demanded revision of rates effectively by 17.5%. Therefore, petitioner retracted from his offer and, therefore, the respondents could not have considered his offer. In such circumstances, the only option the respondents had was to have considered the tenders made by the other tenderers. It was in such circumstances that the offer made by the fifth respondent was considered and rate was negotiated with him. There cannot be any irregularity in such conduct.