Ansar. Vs. State of KeralA.

.....documents was duly satisfied in the appellant's case. mr. salve urged that the bid documents submitted by the appellant fully satisfy the aforesaid tests and the rejection of the appellant's bid was unlawful and cannot be sustained. qualify certification - the company/one of the partners of consortium (in case of consortium) should have an active iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. the aforesaid paragraph indicates that a copy of the quality certificate/document of quality policy would have to be submitted along with the bid documents, with the relaxation that in case the quality certificate was due for renewal, the bidder should ensure that the renewed certificate was made available at the time of signing of the contract. "8. bidder should have active iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of bids. the bidder/lead partners of consortium (in case of consortium) should have an active (valid at least till june 2010) iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. the above provision obliges a tenderer to produce along with the bid document a copy of the quality certificate which is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid and it does not enable a bidder to withhold the copy of such quality certificate. the appellant claimed to have a valid and active iso 9001:2000 certificate at the time of submission of the bid, but did not produce a copy of the said certificate along with the bid document......who is the sole accused in crime no.950 of 2010 of quilandy police station for offences punishable under sections 342 & 332 i.p.c., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. the learned public prosecutor opposed the application. 3. after evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the apex court in siddharam satlingappa mhetre v. state of maharashtra and others (crl.appeal no. 2271 of 2010), i am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioner. but at the same time, i am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail allowed by the magistrate or the court having jurisdiction. accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 17/12/2010 or on 18/12/2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. in case the investigating officer is of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrest of the petitioner is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of siddharam satlingappa mhetre's case (supra). the petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the magistrate or the court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. in case the interrogation of the petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the magistrate or the court concerned and apply for regular bail. the magistrate or the court on being satisfied that the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioner on bail. 4. in case the accused while surrendering before the investigating officer has deprived the investigating officer sufficient.....