Kerala High Court
Baburaj P.B vs Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences ... on 14 September, 2012
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/18TH POUSHA 1934
WA.No. 6 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).20751/2012 DATED 14-09-2012
---------------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :
---------------------------------------
BABURAJ P.B.,
S/O.P.R.BALAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
PULINKUZHY HOUSE, SUBHASH NAGAR
ELANJIKKULAM, P.O.MANNUTHI, THRISSUR-680651.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K. XAVIER
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, POOKKODE,WAYANAD-673576.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES,
ANIMAL GENETICS AND BREEDING,
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
MANNUTHI.
3. HEMALATHA ASOKAN,
W/O.ASOKAN, PAMBUNGAL HOUSE, P.O.MUNDOOR,
THRISSUR.
BY ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
&
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Writ Appeal No.6 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J Appellant, who was a tenderer before the University was before the learned single Judge challenging the tender procedure and the conclusion thereof to her detriment, on the ground that the successful tenderer had provided the Earnest Money Deposit by way of cash and not by way of Demand Draft, as indicated in Ext.P2.
2. The learned single Judge has noticed that the tender in which the appellant participated and lost was Ext.P1 and not Ext.P2. Ext.P1 contained only a condition that the Earnest Money Deposit should be of `10,000/-. It was not specifically stipulated whether it should be by way of demand draft or otherwise. So far as Ext.P2 was concerned, it was specifically provided that the Earnest Money Deposit should be by way of Writ Appeal No.6 of 2013 2 Demand Draft. The appellant's contention before the learned single Judge as also before us was that as per the rules and procedure for conducting auction, Earnest Money Deposit is to be provided by demand draft. To further this contention, reliance is placed on Ext.P2. Ext.P2, as was noticed by the learned single Judge, was a notification with respect to invitation of tenders for another work. Ext.P2 was not a general rule or regulation binding the University. The conditions in Ext.P2 cannot be incorporated to the conditions provided in Ext.P1 as it was a separate and distinct contract.
In these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Appeal dismissed. No costs.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sj8/13