IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 17490 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 AJEESH A.S
SUDHA SADANAM, MOONGODE PO, VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695144.
2 ANUMON.M.S
KARTHIKA, PERAPPU, VATTATHAMARA.PO, KOLLAM-691536.
3 A.S. ALANCHAND .
AERAVEEDU, KATAIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695584.
BY ADV C.S.SUNIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
TRIVANDRUM ,CHAIRMAN, TRIVANDRUM GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY. 695010.
2 PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE,
TRIVANDRUM VICE CHAIRMAN, TRIVANDRUM GOVERNMENT
MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY. 695010.
3 SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,
TRIVANDRUM SECRETARY AND CONVENER, TRIVANDRUM
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY. 695010.
BY ADVS.
GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAN BABU
GP P.S.APPU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C ) No. 17490 of 2022
2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P. (C ) No. 17490 of 2022
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are participated in the tender for conducting Cafeterias at the Trivandrum Medical College Hospital. The bids submitted by the petitioners as per Exts.P2, P3 and P4 was rejected for the reason that the petitioners failed to furnish sufficient Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention to the handwritten entry in Ext.P1. The entry is to the following effect, "EMD-1%". It is contended that since what exactly is meant by the 1% was not discernible, the petitioners deposited 1% of the monthly rental quoted by them.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the EMD to be furnished is 1% of the annual rental value and not 1% of the monthly rental value. W.P. (C ) No. 17490 of 2022 3
4. I heard the learned Government Pleader also.
5. In my considered opinion, no mention being made in Ext.P1 as to what exactly is meant by EMD of 1%, the petitioners cannot be faulted for having furnished 1% of monthly rental as EMD. If EMD is 1% of the annual rental, then the petitioners ought to be granted an opportunity to remit that amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are the highest bidders and are willing to pay the EMD fixed by the respondents.
6. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3 rd respondent to inform the petitioners the amount of EMD to be deposited and permit the petitioners to deposit that amount. If the amount is deposited, the petitioners bid shall also be considered. The interim order against finalisation of the tender shall continue to be force for ten days.
Sd/-V.G.ARUN JUDGE lsn W.P. (C ) No. 17490 of 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17490/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 25-4.2022.
Exhibit P2 HE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. DATED 26-5-2022 FOR TENDER NO.3/2021.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. D 26-5-2022 FOR TENDER 3/2011 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. 26-5-202L FOR TENDER â„-. 3 / 2021.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN