← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/23964/2015dismissed

Ashokan v. The Varkala Municipality

2015-08-20Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Shaffique,Honourable The Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/29TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 23964 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- K.ASHOKAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, "THEERTHAM", PUTHENCHANTHA VARKALA, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN-695141.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.E.S.SANDHYA RESPONDENTS:

----------------------

1. THE VARKALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141.

2. SECRETARY VARKALA MUNICPALITY, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695141.

3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695141.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITH KUMAR,SC,VARKALA MUNICIPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-082015 ALONG WITH WA NO.389/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 23964 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO. PW1/7084/13 DATED 2412-2014. EXHIBIT P1(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-02-2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO. PW1/7115/13 DATED 2412-2014. EXHIBIT P2(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-02-2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO. PW1/12017/14 DATED 2602-2015. EXHIBIT P3(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-06-2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO. PW1/11955/14 DATED 1602-2015. EXHIBIT P4(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-06-2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO. PW1/11997/14 DATED 1002-2015. EXHIBIT P5(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-06-2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO. PW1/11938/14 DATED 2401-2015. EXHIBIT P6(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-06-2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- //True Copy// PS to Judge Rp

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

================ W.P. (C) No.23964 of 2015 W.A.No.389 of 2015 ================ Dated this, the 20th day of August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Ashok Bhushan, C.J.

This writ petition as well as the writ appeal having heard together are disposed of by this common judgment. 2.

This writ appeal has been filed against judgment dated 4/2/2015 in WP(C) No.1076/2015, which was filed by the appellant, challenging Ext.P3, by which, petitioner's offer was rejected. Learned Single Judge by the judgment upheld the rejection holding that having accepted the pre-condition attached to the tender notification, respondent Municipality could not be found fault with for rejecting the petitioner's bid. 3.

WP(C) No.23964/2015 has been filed by one Sri.Ashokan praying for direction to issue work orders as far as Exts.P1 and P2 and also to permit the petitioner to execute the agreement and complete the legal formalities as far as Exts.P3,

W.P. (C) No.23964 of 2015 W.A.No.389 of 2015 -:2:- P4, P5 and P6 are concerned. Writ petitioner claimed to be a contractor who has submitted application against the works tendered by the Municipality. He has come up in the writ petition seeking for a direction to issue work order.

4.

Municipality has filed a statement in WA No.389/2015. Municipality in its statement has stated that except the cases where agreement has already been executed, the Municipality has decided to retender all other works.

We do not find any error in the action of the Municipality taking a decision to retender the work and not to execute the agreement in particular offers, except those where agreement has already been executed. Municipality was free to take a decision in that regard and in the above view of the matter, we dismiss the writ appeal as well as the writ petition with the aforesaid observations.

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp