Dismissed

Gen Machine Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2017WA/1481/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Tender Authority's disqualification of the appellant due to alleged lack of experience. The Court held that technical bodies are competent to decide on technical matters and found no evidence of perversity or mala fides in the decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed without interference with the impugned order disqualifying the appellant.

Gen Machine Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2017/29TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WA. No.1481 of 2017 ()

¶6

¶7

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04-07-2017 IN WP(C) NO.33508/2016.)

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:-

¶9

GEN MACHINE ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MISGAB FLAT NO.2, CIRCULAR ROAD, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.169, P.R.HILL, KOHIMA - 797 001, NAGALAND.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶11

SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):-

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ("TENDERING AUTHORITY" AND "EMPLOYER"), SIRUVANI PROJECT CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD - 678 012, KERALA.

¶15

THE CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (DRIP), 3RD FLOOR, NEW LIBRARY BUILDING, DAM SAFETY REHABILITATION DIRECTORATE, CENTRAL DAM SAFETY ORGANIZATION, NEW SEWA BHAVAN, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110 066.

¶16

MARYMATHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MARYMATHA SQUARE, ARAKUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 686 661.

¶17

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, I & D, IDRB, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 680 020.

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WA. No.1481 of 2017 ()

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

R4 BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.P.SHANES METHAR R3 BY SMT. MINI R. MENON, ADDL. CGSC R1, R2 & R5 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI K. V. SOHAN

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WA. No.1481 of 2017 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶26

A1:- COPY OF I.A. NO.10087/2017 ALONG WITH THE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.06.2017. A2:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.06.2017. A3:- COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.06.2017.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-NIL

¶28

//TRUE COPY//

¶29

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶30

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J.

¶31

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶33

- - - - W.A. No.1481 of 2017

¶34

- - - - Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶37

This appeal is against the judgment dated 04.07.2017 in W.P.(C) No.33508 of 2016. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The recommendation forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent by which the appellant was found not qualified for consideration of grant of the tender in question, was, inter alia , the subject of challenge in the writ petition.

¶38

It appears that a tender having been issued by the second respondent, the appellant and fourth respondent submitted their tenders, apart from others. Initially, the appellant was shown as qualified in the technical bid, whereas the fourth respondent was shown disqualified. Later, the fourth respondent, on explanation being given, was treated as qualified and when financial bids were opened, it was found

¶39

WA.1481/17

¶40

-:2:-

¶41

that appellant was 'L1' and the fourth respondent was 'L2”. The matter was then referred to the Central Water Commission, who opined that the appellant was, in fact, not qualified to be awarded the contract because they did not have the necessary work experience, as was required in the eligibility criteria. The appellant contests this position and submits that, in fact, the second respondent had not forwarded the full information concerning the eligibility and work experience of the appellant to the third respondent.

¶42

We have examined the order passed by third respondent, that is, Exhibit P5(a), which is the same as Exhibit R5(b). The reason given therein is that the appellant lacks requisite experience. The affidavit filed by the third respondent clearly states that the appellant had submitted Exhibit P4 representation to the third respondent. Pursuant thereto, the matter was considered and ultimately, Exhibit P5 (a) order was passed showing the appellant to be disqualified. Our attention has been drawn to Exhibit P4, the explanation of

¶43

WA.1481/17

¶44

-:3:-

¶45

the appellant filed before the third respondent. There, the appellant had clearly mentioned their experience apart from other things and it is indeed after considering the same, the third respondent rejected the appellant as ineligible. Therefore, the contention that the second respondent had not forwarded the full information concerning the eligibility and work experience of the appellant to the third respondent has no legs to stand.

¶46

Learned counsel for the third respondent then pointed out that the two experience certificates are Exhibits P8 and P9. Learned counsel along with learned counsel for the fourth respondent, who has been awarded the contract, submits that reference to Exhibits P8 and P9 both would show that the appellant lacked the financial capability in respect of the experience part. This is what has been reflected in Exhibit P5(a).

¶47

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶48

WA.1481/17

¶49

-:4:-

¶50

The scope of interference in contractual matters is extremely limited and the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Judicial review, though being available, does not mean that this Court has to act as an appellate authority over the decision making process. Here, a responsible body, the third respondent, having seen the certificates, has taken a decision which, on the face of it, does not look perverse or mala fide in fact or in law. They are technical people taking technical decisions. The materials being before them and the decision not being shown to be perverse and mala fide on the face of the record, we do not think it to be a case for interference.

¶51

We thus, find no reason to interfere. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶52

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶53

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶54

krj.21/7

Gen Machine Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gen Machine Engineers Pvt. 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

Food Corporation of India Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation

Abey Varkey Vs Union of Iindia

R.Sreenath Vs Smt.Nalini Netto IAS

M.P.Sasi Kumar Vs State of Kerala

George Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shibu U.Nair Vs State of Kerala