In a writ appeal challenging a public procurement decision, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition because appellants failed to aver specific details of applying for tender forms within the deadline, accepting the Government's case on this procedural ground.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI
MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930
WA.No. 263 of 2009
--------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.28910/2008 DATED 23/01/2009
APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS:
------------------------------------------
1. C.H.PAVITHRAN, PALAKUNNU, BEKAL, KASARAGOD.
2. MANOHARAN P.V., M.R.NIVAS, MORAZHA P.O., KANNUR 670 331.
BY ADV. MR.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ.
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, N.H.NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. MEERA.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & V.Giri, J.
W.A.No. 263 of 2009
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009
Judgment
Koshy, Ag.C.J.
Ext.P5 tender notification was published for the work in connection with National Highway 17. Norms for pre-qualification were also mentioned in the notification. It is the contention of the appellants/petitioners that pre-qualification was not required in this matter as the work was below Rs.500 lakhs and as per Ext.P6 norms, it can be an open tender. Contention of the Government is that Ext.P6 is applicable to Irrigation Department despite the guidelines from the Ministry of Surface Transport and order like Ext.P6 was not issued. In any event, definite contention of the government is that petitioners did not approach them for tender form in time. Ext.P5 clearly provides that parties should either pay the amount for tender forms or send it by money order and apply for tender forms in writing. Petitioner has no case that he applied for tender forms in writing. Even though he stated that he approached the office for issuance of tender forms, it is not averred specifically that he went to the office for tender forms with money. He has not
2
W.A. No.263/2009
mentioned the date and time when he reached the office. The last date for application was upto 22.9.2008. Merely because he approached this court on 24.9.2008, it cannot be presumed that he went to the office with money required for purchasing tender form before 22.9.2008. In the absence of any specific averments, the statement of the Government that he did not approach during the time fixed for issuance of tender forms has to be accepted. In the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the issue whether pre-qualification is necessary or not, this writ appeal is dismissed.
J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice
V. Giri Judge
vaa
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants were eligible to bid given their failure to applied for tender forms within the stipulated time.
Whether a pre-qualification norm was mandatory for the National Highway project in question.
C.H. Pavithran
Manoharan P.V.
State of Kerala
J.B. Koshy
V. Giri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
