Disposed

Abg Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 May 2016WP(C)/6669/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a tender bid. The Court noted the second respondent's decision to invite fresh bids and allowed the petitioner to participate in the new tender if eligible. No substantive order was framed beyond this clarification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is at liberty to participate in the fresh tender if otherwise eligible.

Abg Engineering Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6669 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

ABG ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., CORPORATE TOWER, ST. MARY'S GROUPS, MUTHOOR THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN -689 107, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.O. ALEYAS,AGED 55, S/O.LATE KURUVILA UNIITAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O,P.O.THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, IRRIGATIONS DEPARTMENT,

¶11

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001

¶12

2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SUVANI PROJECT CIRCLE, PALAKKADU, KERALA, PIN -678 001

¶13

3. SIBI K. JOSE, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, KAMBILIKANDAM, PARATHODU P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -685 571

¶14

4. P.T.MATHEW, PANDAKASALA, KAMPAMCODE, VAYAKAL P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN- 691 532

¶15

*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED

¶16

*Addl.R5. CHIEF ENGINEER, I & D IDRB, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/3/2016 IN IA.NO.3428/2016.

¶18

R1,R2 & ADDL.R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

WP(C).No. 6669 of 2016 (G)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1: COPY OF THE RETENDER DATED 06.06.2015

¶25

P2: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TENDER MANAGEMENT

¶26

P3: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF INVITATION FOR BID

¶27

P4: COPY OF THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.12.2015

¶28

P5: COPY OF THE E- MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 19.01.2016

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶35

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶36

WP(C).No.6669 of 2016-G.

¶37

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶38

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2016.

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Ext.P5 communication of the second respondent is

¶41

under challenge. As per Ext.P5 communication, the second respondent rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to a tender invitation. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the second respondent has decided to invite fresh bids for the same work. In the light of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is closed with the clarification that the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the fresh tender, if he is otherwise eligible.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶44

Kvs/-

¶45

// true copy //

Abg Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abg Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayamohan Gopalan Vs M/S.Cochin Star Constructions (Star Homes)

P.V. Shaiju Kumar Vs Addl. District Magistrate, Kasaragod

Kunhipathumma Vs the Village Officer

Dr.U Chandran Vs State of Kerala

The Alakkodu Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Pillai Vs the District Collector