Petitioners challenged denial of pre-qualification in a government tender, seeking quashing of the minutes and declaration of illegality. Court found the work had been de-sanctioned and disposed of the petition as infructuous.
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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933
WP(C).No. 14612 of 2011(B)
--------------------------
PETITIONERS:
BY ADV. MR. K.BABU THOMAS
MS. MARYKUTTY BABU
RESPONDENTS:
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) 14612 OF 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
| EXT. P1 | : TRUE COPY OF TENDER NOTICE FOR THE WORK |
|---|---|
| EXT. P2 | : TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR - PROCEDURE FOR PRE- QUALIFICATION |
| EXT. P3 | : TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF TENDER DOCUMENTS. |
| EXT. P3(a) | : TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE FOR RS. 7,05,02,603/- |
| EXT. P3 (b) | : TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE FOR RS. 5,49,62,000/- |
| EXT. P3(c) | : TRUE COPY OF THE BID CAPACITY OF RS. 2,866.64 LAKHS |
| EXT. P4 | : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE. |
| EXT. P5 | : TRUE COPY OF LETTER SEEKING EXTENTION OF FIRM PERIOD |
| EXT. P6 | : TRUE COPY OF LETTER EXTENDING THE FIRM PERIOD |
| EXT. P7 | : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE FIRST PETITIONER FOR RE-VALUATION OF THE BID CAPACITY FOR PRE-QUALIFICATION. |
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
W.P (C) No . 14612 of 2011
Dated, this the 4th October, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following
prayers :
i. issue a writ of certiorari, or any appropriate writ, or order, or direction, to the respondents calling for the records of the case leading up to Ext. P7 and to quash Ext. P4 to the extent of denial of pre-qualification to the first petitioner.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to forthwith consider and pass orders on Ext. P7 for re-evaluating the eligibility qualifications of the first petitioner for prequalification in accordance with the mandatory procedure stipulated in Ext. P2 based on the bid capacity of Rs. 2,866.64 lakhs in Ext. P3 © or revised bid capacity of Rs. 2070.64 lakhs as on 16.05.2011 in Ext. P7 as against Rs. 1,838 lakhs required for item 3 of the work in Ext. P1, to open its financial bid for award of contract for the work.
iii. declare that the respondents are bound to grant prequalification to the 1st petitioner for opening of its financial bid for item 3 of the work in Ext. P1 in view of its bid capacity of Rs. 2866.64 lakhs in Ext. P3 © as stipulated in Ext. P2 and that consideration of documents not included in the technical bid submitted behind the back without notice and affording of an opportunity of being heard and denial of
W.P. (C) No. 14612 of 2011
: 2 :
pre-qualification is unauthorized, illegal without jurisdiction and is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore Ext. P4 is invalid and null and void ab initio to that extent.
iv. issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent interdicting them from all further proceedings for opening of the financial bids for item3 of the work in Ext. P1 until the eligibility qualifications of the first petitioner are re-evaluated as sought in Ext. P7 for grant of pre-qualification in accordance with the mandatory procedure stipulated in Ext. P2 and opening of its financial bid for consideration for award of contract for the work and
v. grant such other relief this Hon. Court may deem prper, just and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including cost incurred by the petitioners in these proceedings.
W.P. (C) No. 14612 of 2011
: 3 :
In the above circumstances, the matter has virtually become infructuous. Submission made by the learned Government Pleader as above is recorded. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd
M/s. K. Ravindran Government Contractor
V. Rajeevendranath
State of Kerala
Chief Engineer, National Highway
Regional Officer, National Highway
P. R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
