The court examined a writ petition regarding the impugned tender for hiring a jeep. It found that the respondent authorities published appropriate notices and invited tenders per rules, contradicting the claim of procedural lapse or malpractice.
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2014/30TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 16027 of 2013 (C)
PETITIONER :
S.P.PRINCE,S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,AGED 52 YEARS, SREENIKETHAN, KARIMPINPUZHA P.O., PANGODE, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUDHI BAHVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VAIDYUTHI BAHAVAN, KOTTARAKARA - 691 016.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, KOTTARAKARA - 691 016.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MODEL SECTION, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKARA - 691 016.
5. AMBILI P.,RATHESH VILASOM, THEVALAKARA, POONKULANJI P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 516.
R1 TO R4 BY SMT.NAZEEBA.O.H.,SC, KSEB
SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON 21-07-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 16027 of 2013 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION ORDER DATED 02.07.2012 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/6/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 16027 of 2013
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of July, 2014.
The writ petition is filed to quash tender No. 9/10/11 & 12/AB4/ECK/2013-14 dated 25.5.2013 and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to call for fresh tenders for hiring a jeep with driver on a contract basis for the said period and for other consequential reliefs.
W.P(C) No. 16027 of 2013 -: 2 :-
31.5.2013. The petitioner did not submit any application. The averment that he approached the 3rd respondent for tender was denied. On the last date of issue of tenders, the tender forms were given to the 5th respondent as well as another person, viz. Nizamudeen. It is also indicated that tender notice was published in Rashtradeepika daily on 29,5.2013. Tender notices were also sent to all the offices as per the rules and regulations prevailing in the Kerala State Electricity Board. In paragraph 7, they have also narrated the persons who had submitted tenders in respect of different contracts. 9 persons participated in the tender under the same notification. Therefore, it was contended that there was no procedural lapse as far as the above tender is concerned. Learned counsel for the respondents also brought to the notice of this Court a copy of the advertisement in Rashtradeepika. The learned counsel also brought to my notice the interoffice communication, which indicated that the petitioner stopped operating his service with reference to the contract at Electrical Section, Puthoor. He had informed the Department that since the work is not profitable, he cannot operate the vehicle. Hence the work was re-tendered and awarded to another person.
W.P(C) No. 16027 of 2013
-: 3 :-
clear that appropriate notice had been published by the respondent authorities while inviting tenders and the contention that the procedure for inviting tender had not been complied with, does not seem to be correct.
Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for in this writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the tender process for hiring a vehicle was conducted in compliance with rules and regulations, negating the claim of malpractice.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to direction for calling a fresh tender after his contract expired.
Whether the writ petition seeking to quash the tender award and for fresh tender succeeds.
S.P.Prince
The Kerala State Electricity Board
The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Vaidyuthi Bahavan, Kottarakara
The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Kottarakara
The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Model Section, Puthoor
Ambili P
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
