K.MOOSA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is seeking to challenge re-issuance of a tender notice for the work involved in the light of the fact that there was no defect in the tender submitted by the petitioner.

(2.) THE tender notice initially was published on 31.05.2012 as per Ext.P1 and on the basis of the notification provided therein, the petitioner submitted a tender for the construction of item No.4 namely, Construction of Building for Oorakam Government Ayurvedic Dispensary. According to the petitioner, there was no restriction at that point of time to accept his tender even if a single tender alone was received pursuant to the notification. No further communication was also given to the petitioner. But later he came to know that Ext.P1 has been cancelled on the basis of Ext.P2 Government Circular dated 01.08.2012, and thereafter by Ext.P3 dated 06.08.2012, a fresh tender was invited.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader on getting instructions submitted that as far as tender notification dated 31.05.2012 is concerned, only one tender was submitted namely, that of the petitioner. It is submitted that even in the absence of Ext.P2, there is power on the authority concerned not to accept a single tender in the light of Article 142 of the PWD Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Court need not go into the question whether Ext.P2 is having any retrospective effect or not. Thereafter a notice was published as per Ext.P3 and the petitioner has not submitted any tender also. It is submitted that the petitioner has not acquired any right to compel the respondents to accept the tender as it was only an offer. The tender itself cancelled and a fresh tender has been invited.