RAVEENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the petitioner in O. R No. 36894 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge.

(2.) IN the Original Petition the appellant prayed for a direction to the second respondent Project Officer N. H. (ADB) Circle, Edapally, Ernakulam not to award the third work notified in Ext. P2 tender notice to the third respondent. C. A. Shaji, by entertaining the tender received in violation of the conditions stipulated in Ext. P2. There was also a prayer for a direction to the second respondent to award the said work to the appellant since he was the lower bidder among all the qualified tenders received as per Ext. P2. There was a further prayer for a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 representation. The learned Single Judge found that there was no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant and accordingly the Original Petition was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors. , (2001 (2) SCC 451) and contended that relaxation by State or its agencies of a rule or condition in favour of a particular bidder is not permissible, unless expressly provided for in the rules. According to the learned Counsel, by accepting the tender of the third respondent, the second respondent granted relaxation to the third respondent from the condition that tenders would be received only by registered post. But, for the reasons stated earlier, we are of the view that the accepting the tender submitted through courier, there has not been any serious deviation from or relaxation of the condition that tenders would be received only by registered post. In the case before the Supreme Court, the bidder was permitted to correct the errors in the tender, the magnitude of which would have given a different complexion to the bid. There is no such correction of errors in this case. In our view the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of this case.