BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of machine tools. In terms of Ext.P1 tender notice, the second respondent invited bids for supply of a few machine tools that are being manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted bid pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice. The Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) payable for participating in the bid process was furnished by the petitioner by way of bank guarantee. The bid of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner should have paid the EMD electronically. Ext.P5 is the communication issued by the second respondent in this connection to the petitioner. Ext.P5 is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent in the matter. The stand taken by the second respondent in the statement is that in terms of the general conditions incorporated in the notice inviting bids, EMD should have been remitted electronically by the bidders and that the petitioner has not remitted the EMD in the aforesaid manner.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.