Disposed

C.K.Surendran v. the Superintending Engineer

Kerala HC3 Feb 2017WP(C)/1026/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that attestation of a contractor's registration certificate by a Superintending Engineer or Executive Engineer constitutes a mandatory condition in the tender. Consequently, the respondent was directed to finalize proceedings only after hearing all bidders and strictly adhering to these requirements.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent is directed to finalize the proceedings only after hearing the petitioner and 3rd respondent and other affected persons, strictly adhering to the conditional attestation requirement

C.K.Surendran Vs the Superintending Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/14TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1026 of 2017 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.K.SURENDRAN, VARUVILAKAM HOUSE, KALLUMMOODU, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (BUILDING & LOCAL WORKS), SOUTH CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶11

3. SRI.ANIL KUMAR P., CHAKKAMPAKKAM, PUTHUMANA LANE, KUDAVOOR, ANAYARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 029. R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R3 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C).No. 1026 of 2017 (C)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶18

P2 TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE E-GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT (E-GP) WEBSITE, DATED 21.12.2016 SHOWING THE TRANSACTION STATUS AS SUCCESS.

¶19

P3 TRUE COPY OF TENDER INVITING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BIDDERS AND THEIR STATUS. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C)No. 1026 of 2017

¶27

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2017

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner is an 'A' class registered contractor. First respondent as per Ext.P3 invited tenders for a work, namely, Health & Family Welfare (P) Department - Annual plan 2016-17- Asset Maintenance Fund – Urgent Special Repairs and Renovation Works of Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapram. The case projected by the petitioner is that, the notice inviting tender and the notice enclosed with the bid document specify the documents which a bidder is mandatorily required to submit along with the bid. One of such document is the attested copy of the licence. The notice inviting tender and also the notice specifically states that, the attestation of the copy of the licence shall be done by the Superintending Engineer/Executive Engineer. According to the petitioner, the said requirement is a mandatory

¶30

W.P.(C)No. 1026 of 2017 2

¶31

requirement. However, the licence of the 3^rd respondent has been attested by an Assistant Engineer, who is not at

¶32

all the competent authority. But, in spite of said procedure, the 1^st respondent is proceeding with the bid submitted by the 3^rd respondent, in spite of the fact that, he had submitted the bid in violation of the terms of the notice inviting tender and the bid documents. It is thus seeking appropriate orders, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Petitioner has also produced Ext.P6 along with I.A.No.855/2017 dated 12.01.2017. Ext.P6 is the

¶34

photocopy of the 3^rd respondent's licence, from which it is seen that, same is attested by the Assistant Engineer Building Section, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, according to the petitioner, 3^rd respondent is an unqualified person to participate in the bid.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader as well as the the counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

The issue to be resolved in this writ petition is

¶37

whether the requirement of attestation by a

¶38

W.P.(C)No. 1026 of 2017 3

¶39

Superintending Engineer or an Executive Engineer of PWD, Kerala is a mandatory requirement.

¶40

Admittedly, the tender proceedings are not finalised. However, clause 4(3) of Ext.P3 bid document, makes it clear that, a stipulation with respect to attestation of the photocopy of the licence is required by the Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers of PWD, Kerala, which read thus:-

¶41

“ (iii) The bidder shall mandatorily enclose an attested copy of his/her valid and active Registration Certificates to the Tender Inviting Authority in an envelope. The bidder shall get the Registration Certificate attested only from any of the Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers of PWD, Kerala. The envelope, containing attested copy of the valid and active Registration Certificate, preliminary agreement should reach the department on or before the bid opening date & time, failing which, the bid is liable to be rejected. The department shall not be responsible for any postal service delay or any other delay.”

¶42

The same is also repeated in clause 8 of special

¶43

conditions of Ext.P3, which read thus:-

¶44

“a) Copy of bidder's Registration Certificate attested by Superintending/Executive Engineer in PWD.”

¶45

This is further repeated in the notice issued by

¶46

the Superintending Engineer, a document appended along

¶47

W.P.(C)No. 1026 of 2017 4

¶48

with Ext.P3 in which it is also stated that, attested copy of licence is to be attested by SE/EE of PWD. The phraseology and the imperative words used in the tender document makes it clear that, there should be an attestation of the copy of the licence by the SE/EE of PWD Kerala. But, the tender is not finalised by the 1^st respondent. Anyhow the conditions contained under the bid documents are the rules of the game which will have to be strictly followed by the 1^st respondent.

¶49

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that, as per the PWD manual, minor correction can be allowed to be carried out. The same is also to be considered by the 1^st respondent. However, I make it clear that, the tender conditions are binding on both parties as well as the tender evaluation authorities.

¶50

Therefore, the 1^st respondent is directed to finalise the proceedings only after hearing the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent or any other interested or affected persons. Since an issue has arisen, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to invite the petitioner,

¶51

W.P.(C)No. 1026 of 2017

¶52

¶53

3^rd respondent and all other bidders and finalise the

¶54

proceedings, taking note of the imperative conditions specified above, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶57

rmm/4/2/2017

C.K.Surendran v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Surendran v. the Superintending Engineer

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

V.N.Sulochana Vs S.Jayakumar

Sunil Thomas Vs Padmanabhan

Mahadevan Vs the District Collector

Dr. Himal Raj Vs State Kerala

P.Sasikumar Vs District Collector

Panginikadan Anaiz Vs State of Kerala