Dismissed

K.P.Alias v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2017WP(C)/4303/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by contractors seeking relief against the rejection of their tenders. The rejection was due to the submission of unattested affidavits as required by the tender notice. The Court held that tender conditions are mandatory rules that must be scrupulously followed and refused to treat the non-attestation of affidavits as a curable defect.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are not entitled to any relief; writ petitions fail and are dismissed.

K.P.Alias Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | 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 MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4303 of 2017 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. K.P.ALIAS,

¶8

S/O.K.C.POULOSE,AGED 63 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,

¶9

KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,PEECHANIKKAD,

¶10

PULIYANAM.P.O,ANGAMALY-VIA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. P.C.GEORE,

¶12

S/O.CHANDY,AGED 59 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,

¶13

PUNNAPUZHA HOUSE,KILLIMANGALAM.P.O,

¶14

VADAKKANCHERY-VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

3. P.C.DEVASSY,

¶16

S/O.CHANDY,AGED 57 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,

¶17

PUNNAPUZHA HOUSE,

¶18

KILLIMANGALAM.P.O,VADAKKANCHERY-VIA,

¶19

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

4. P.C.MATHEW,

¶21

S/O.CHANY,AGED 62 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,

¶22

PUNNAPUZHA HOUSE,KILLIMANGALAM.P.O,

¶23

VADAKKANCHERY-VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶24

5. K..M.ABDUL KHADER,

¶25

S/O K.V.MUHAMMED HAJI,AGED 42 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,

¶26

KOOTTAPURACKAL HOUSE,KUMBLAKODE.P.O,PAZHAYANNUR POTTA,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680587.

¶27

6. JOHNSON.V.V,

¶28

S/O.VARKEY,AGED 54 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,

¶29

VADUKKOOTT HOUSE,CHELAKKARA.P.O,

¶30

THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680586.

¶31

7. SHAIJU.K.K,

¶32

S/O.K.K.KUNJU VAREED,AGED 45 YEARS,CONTRACTOR, KARIPAYI HOUSE,MOTHARAKKANNY.P.O,THOOMPAKOD,

¶33

THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680724.

¶34

8. M.K.MUHAMMED KUTTY,

¶35

S/O.M.S.KUNHALAVI,AGED 50 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,

¶36

MECHERIKUNNATH HOUSE,CHERUTHURUTHY,

¶37

THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-679531.

¶38

WP(C).No. 4303 of 2017 (K)

¶39

9. M.D.KURIAN, S/O.M.K.DEVASSY,AGED 50 YEARS,CONTRACTOR, MOOLAN HOUSE,MOOKKANNOOR.P.O,ANGAMALY-VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶40

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.P.T.ABHILASH

¶41

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶42

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶43

2. MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 5TH FLOOR,SWARAJ BHAVAN,NANTHANCODE,KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶44

3. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 5TH FLOOR,SWARAJ BHAVAN,NANTHANCODE,KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶45

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2017, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.5610/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

WP(C).No. 4303 of 2017 (K)

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER DATED 28.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF PACKAGE NO.KR-13-81 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BID DETAILS OF PACKAGE NO.KR 13-82 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER FOR THE WORK INVOLVED IN PACKAGE NO.KR-13-78 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.2.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶51

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶56

W.P.(C) Nos.4303 & 5610 of 2017

¶57

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2017

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

The above captioned writ petitions are materially connected

¶60

in respect of non-compliance of condition No.(d) of Clause 5 of Ext.P1 notice inviting tender. Narration of separate facts are not required, since material aspects to be considered revolves round the aforesaid clause.

¶61

Petitioners are contractors by profession having “A” class registration in pursuance to Ext.P1 and similar notice inviting tender dated 28.12.2016 issued by the third respondent. Sealed tenders were submitted by the petitioners. In condition No.(d) of Clause 5 of Ext.P1 it is stipulated that the bidder must submit original affidavit regarding the correctness of information furnished with the bid document as per the provisions of Clause 4.4B (a) (ii) of invitation of tender bid (ITB). The time limit prescribed for submission of tender through online was 5 p.m. On 21.1.2017. It is submitted, all petitioners have submitted tender through online within the time frame fixed in Ext.P1 along with original affidavit, which was prepared and signed in plain papers/letter heads. In

¶62

¶63

W.P.(C) Nos.4303 & 5610 of 2017

¶64

other words, the affidavit enclosed by the petitioners along with the bids were not attested or signed before a Magistrate/Munsiff/Notary Public . The said error, according to the petitioners have occurred solely on the reason that, there was no specific stipulation in Ext.P1 notification that the affidavit insisted in Clause 5 of Ext.P1 must be attested by a Magistrate/Munsiff/Notary Public. It is also submitted, the rate quoted by the petitioners were much below the estimated PAC. That apart it is also stated that, the mistake caused by the petitioners in the matter of submission of affidavits is only a curable defect, which cannot materially affect the bids submitted by the petitioners. Thereupon, petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4303/2017 submitted Ext.P8 representation along with Exts. P5 to P7 affidavits, along with similar representations and affidavits. But beside the fact that the time fixed to open the price bid is at 11.00 a.m on 9.2.2017, the technical bid submitted by the petitioners, were not given clearance by the third respondent, on account of the defect pointed out above.

¶65

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶66

¶67

W.P.(C) Nos.4303 & 5610 of 2017

¶68

The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted in the rejection of tenders submitted by the petitioners, consequent to non-compliance of a condition contained in the notice inviting tender. It is clearly specified in Clause 5 in Ext.P1 that, the bidders are required to submit original affidavits regarding correctness of information furnished with the bid document as per provisions of Clause 4.4B (a)(ii) of invitation to tender bid. It is apposite and well settled that, the conditions contained in notice inviting tender are the rules of the game, and therefore, all participants shall abide by the conditions contained thereunder, scrupulously and strictly, in order to enable the authorities to evaluate the bid, without any discrimination among the bidders. More over, so far as the affidavit is concerned, it is a very vital document, because every tenderer is to deposing thereunder that the information furnished with the bid documents are true and correct. It cannot be treated as an empty or casual formality. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that, it is a curable defect cannot be sustained under law. It is a well settled proposition in law that an affidavit is a solemn instrument submitted by a party in order to enable the concerned authority to rely upon the same as proof. An affidavit,

¶69

W.P.(C) Nos.4303 & 5610 of 2017

¶70

¶71

in accordance with law is to be attested, and should be engrossed in stamp paper as provided for that purpose. Admittedly, petitioners have not carried out their obligations as per the notice inviting bid and as per the provisions of the invitation to bid and therefore, the petitioners cannot turn around and submit that they were not aware that it should have been prepared in a stamp paper and attested by the stipulated officer, in accordance with the provisions contained under law.

¶72

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar and evaluating the situation I am of the considered opinion that petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the writ petitions. More over, writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court on 8.2.2017, thereafter, various developments have taken place consequent to the time limit prescribed under the bid document. The writ petitions are not amended suitably challenging those developments.

¶73

Writ petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶76

dlk/4/3/

K.P.Alias v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Alias 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

Janardana Kurup.N. Vs Kerala State Housing Board

Muralidharan Pillai Vs District Collector, Kollam

A.K.Abdulkhader Vs the Muvattupuzha-Kothamangalam Primary

Subhashkumar Vs Director, Director of Social Justice

Jonica.J Vs Kerala State Handicaped Persons Welfare Corporation

Madaswami. P Vs State of Kerala