In a writ petition challenging the rejection of its tender bid, the High Court examined whether the petitioner and consortium partner met eligibility criteria, including possession of an Importer-Exporter Code, PAN card, and requisite experience, at the time of tender submission.
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
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/28TH PHALGUNA, 1936
WP(C).No. 5115 of 2015 (L)
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
BLISS ABODE HOTELS PVT. LTD., TC 26/807, THRIPTHI, CHEMPAKA NAGAR, GPO, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, MRS. MARY JOB.
BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA SIDCO LTD., KERALA SIDCO LTD., 6TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 001.
BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 5115 of 2015 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IMPORTER-EXPORTER CODE (IEC) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY.
EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT DTD.24.11.2014. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF REJECTION OF BID BY THE RESPONDENT ON 16.2.2015. EXT. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT DTD.27.11.2014.
EXT. P9: TRUE COPY OF THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF AL MASHAEL PETROLEUM.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.13.2.2015 TO PETITIONER INFORMING THE REASONS FOR REJECTION OF TECHNICAL BID.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P(C). No. 5115 of 2015
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Non-consideration of the bid submitted by the petitioner favourably, so as to effect the supply, pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice issued by the respondent made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition.
WP(c). No.5115 of 2015 2
submitted by the petitioner was rejected mainly for three reasons, which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable, either on fact or in law. Hence the challenge seeking to set aside Ext.P7, also praying for a direction to be given to the respondent to verify the documents submitted by the petitioner and to grant an opportunity to participate in the bid.
paragraph 2 and also the reason stated in Annexure 1, it is seen that the bid submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected for the reasons as given below:
WP(c). No.5115 of 2015
3
WP(c). No.5115 of 2015
4
of tender is without any basis. The learned standing counsel also submits that Ext.P5 'Certificate of Incorporation' issued to the petitioner Company was only on '22.12.2008'. Similarly, in the case of the consortium partner, it came into existence only on '14.7.2009' as discernible from the proceedings forming part of Ext.P6. This being the position, neither the petitioner, nor the consortium partner, is having the requisite experience of 10 years as on the relevant date and as such, the version to the contrary is only to liable to be rejected. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the petitioner had not produced copy of the 'PAN Card' (which has been produced as Ext.P3). In fact, the petitioner had produced only a copy of the application for obtaining the 'PAN' card, which by itself was not sufficient. Submission is also made as to some discrepancies as it appears on the face of the proceedings, with reference to Ext.P8, particularly, stating that bid submitted by the Managing Director, whereas the present proceedings have been filed by another person who is termed as a Director, who is a lady and whose authority to represent the company is not revealed. This Court does not find it necessary to go into that aspect, in so far as it has been brought to the notice
WP(c). No.5115 of 2015
5
of this Court that the documents, copies of which have been produced along with writ petition particularly, Exts.P5 and P6 could not have been submitted by the petitioner on the last date of the tender. The version of the petitioner that all the relevant documents were produced along with the tender cannot be correct. There is no tenable ground so as to call for interference. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should intervene in the rejection of the petitioner's tender bid on grounds of missing documentary evidence.
Whether the petitioner and its consortium partner satisfied the requisite experience and eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender notice at the time of submission.
Bliss Abode Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Managing Director, Kerala SIDCO Ltd.
P.R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
