Dismissed

P. Gangadhara Alva v. Icar - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017WA/2228/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal and closed a separate writ petition as infructuous. The Court upheld the Single Judge's decision granting liberty to issue a fresh tender and held that grievances regarding the new tender could be raised subsequently.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal No.2228 of 2017 dismissed; WPC No.37097 of 2017 closed as infructuous.

P. Gangadhara Alva Vs Icar - Central… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WA.No. 2228 of 2017 IN WP(C).30860/2017 --------------------------------------------

¶4

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30860/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-10-2017

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------

¶6

P. GANGADHARA ALVA AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. KORAGAPPA ALVA, RESIDING AT PITHRU KRIPA, PERDALA (P.O.), KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 551.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

ICAR - CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE KUDLU (P.O.), KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 124, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE, ICAR-CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KUDLU (P.O.), KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 124. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR. RAVI BHAT, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST.

¶10

THE CONTRACTUAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, ICAR-CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KUDLU (P.O.), KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 124, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR. RAVI BHAT, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST.

¶11

VISHAL MANPOWER AND SECURITY CONSULTANTS, KAMALA TOWERS, NEAR URWA MARKET, ASHOK NAGAR (P.O.), MANGALORE, PIN - 575 006. R1,R2,R3 BY ADV. M/S.VARGHESE & JACOB R1,R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. R1,R2,R3 BY ADV. SMT.JISEMOL THOMAS

¶12

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 37097/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.A.No.2228 of 2017

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES

¶16

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 3.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

css/

Antony Dominic, Ag.C.J. & Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶21

W.A.No.2228 of 2017 & WPC No.37097 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2017

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Antony Dominic, Ag.C.J.

¶25

W.A.No.2228 of 2017 arises from the judgment in Writ Petition No.30860 of 2017. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the decision taken by the respondents in pursuance of Ext.P1 tender notice. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition setting aside the award made to the fourth respondent and giving liberty to the first respondent to either go for a fresh tender or to choose one among the tenders. Certain other directions were also issued by the learned Single Judge. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.

¶26

In so far as WPC No.37097 of 2017 is concerned, the

¶27

challenge is against the tender notice published by the first

¶28

W.A.No.2228/2017 & WPC No.37097 of 2017 2

¶29

respondent mentioned above pursuant to the liberty given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in WPC No.30860 of 2017.

¶30

We heard the counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made.

¶31

In so far as the Writ Appeal is concerned, the grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the first respondent to go for a fresh tender. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent having invited tenders and having completed the tender process ought not have been given such a liberty. Having considered the submissions made, we find it difficult to accept the said plea for the reason that the learned Single Judge has only given liberty to the respondents to decide as to whether they should continue the tender process on the basis of Ext.P1 tender notice mentioned above. Law is settled that in a process of tender, at any stage of the proceedings, it is always open to the awarder to cancel the tender notice for reasons which are bona fide and if it is so done, such a decision is always valid. Therefore, in so far as this case is concerned, by inviting a second tender, which is impugned in WPC No.37097 of 2017, the

¶32

W.A.No.2228/2017 & WPC No.37097 of 2017 3

¶33

awarder was only exercising its right and not taking the advantage of liberty given by this Court. Even otherwise, no exemption can be taken to the liberty given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment to the extent liberty has been given to the first respondent to go afresh.

¶34

In so far as WPC No.37097 of 2017 is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner has informed today that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the first respondent has cancelled the tender notice and has invited a fresh tender, about which the petitioner herein, has various grievances.

¶35

According to us, if a fresh tender notice has been published by the first respondent and the petitioner has grievances against the same, it is always open to the petitioner to impugn the same in accordance with law.

¶36

In such circumstances, Writ Appeal No.2228 of 2017 is dismissed and WPC No.37097 of 2017 is closed as infructuous. It is made clear that none of the observations in the judgment will be to the prejudice of the appellant/petitioner in impugning the

¶37

W.A.No.2228/2017 & WPC No.37097 of 2017 4

¶38

tender notice that is now issued by the first respondent and if it is so challenged, the same will be dealt with in accordance with

¶39

law.

¶40

sd/- Antony Dominic Acting Chief Justice

¶41

css/ true copy

¶42

P.S.TO JUDGE

P. Gangadhara Alva v. Icar - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Gangadhara Alva v. Icar - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute

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

Jimmy Joseph Vs Sukumaran

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Janaki Amma

V.K.Nityanandan Vs S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director, Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd.

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Komalavally

Palakkad Jilla Bus Operators Association Vs Government of Kerala