ABDUL NAZAR M.A Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To a notification inviting tenders to execute certain civil works, three contractors respond. The bids opened and processed, at one stage the petitioner's name is dropped: he has no valid licence. On the very same day, the petitioner contacts the officials and sends proof that he does have. The next day, he sends a legal notice, and a day after he files a writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner contends that he has a valid licence. Alternatively, he pleads that the Government extended the period of the old licence beyond the date mentioned in the tender notification. But the authorities maintain that the petitioner has failed to fulfil the tender conditions. Then the mantle falls on another contractor who is awarded the work. So the questions the Courts needs to answer are these:

(3.) Petitioner Abdul Nazar, an A-class contractor, responded to the Ext.P1 tender notification issued by respondents 1 and 2 of the Kerala State Housing Board. The bids were called for civil works including water supply and sanitary installation works. These works include constructing an indoor auditorium for LBS College of Engineering, Kasargod.