Allowed

Charles Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2018WP(C)/2092/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a government contractor challenging the tender award to a co-operative society. The petitioner, being the lowest bidder, argued that Government Orders granting benefits to the society should not be considered valid as they were un-gazetted and not mentioned in the tender notice.

What did the court decide?

Edict to process tenders without granting benefits under the specific Government Orders and finalize proceedings.

Charles Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2092 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

CHARLES MATHEW, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR,AGED 46 YEARS,S/O MATHEW, PALATHRA HOUSE,THURUTHY.P.O,CHANGANACHERRY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

-----------

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

4. THE URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.10957,MADAPPALLY COLLEGE.P.O, VADAKARA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-686546. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶15

5. KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, T.C.4/1654, MAYOORAM,BELHAVEN GARDENS,KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT(PMU), KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD,T.C.4/1654,MAYOORAM, BELHAVEN GARDENS,KOWDIAR POST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶17

WP(C).No. 2092 of 2018 (J)

¶18

7. KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD(KIIFB), 4TH FLOOR,INDIA HEIGHTS, GOVT.WOMEN'S COLLEGE ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,THYCAUD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶19

8. NABARD,

¶20

17/671-1,POOJAPPURAM PRA 15,PATHIRAPALLY LANE,

¶21

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695001,REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶22

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.

¶23

9. K.SASIDHARAN,

¶24

PROPRIETOR,METAGUARD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, KALIYIKKAL,PONOKAM,MAVELIKKARA.P.O,ALAPPUZHA -690101.

¶25

10. M/S.BEGORRA INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,KARIMKUTTIYIL BUILDINGS, ANGADI.P.O,RANNI,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689674.

¶26

R1 TO R3 & R7 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR

¶27

R4 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC,

¶28

R5 & R6 BY SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SC,

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No. 2092 of 2018 (J)

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF INVITATION FOR BID
NO.39/PWD006-06/PD/PMU-KRFV/432/PTA/2017 DATED 22.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR DOING
IMPROVEMENTS TO
MANNARAKULANJI-KOZHENCHERRY ROAD IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF G.O.(M.S)NO.135/97/C-OP DATED 13-11-1997
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF G.O(M.S)NO.44/01/PWD DATED 19.03.2004.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.05.2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.13449/2004
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF A CHART SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE BID AMOUNTS QUOTED AND SUBMITTED BY THE BIDDERS
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF G.O.NO.31/16/COP DATED 29.06.2016
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.181/08/CO-OP DATED 02.08.2008
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.1.2018 SEND TO 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2018 SEND TO 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2018 SEND TO 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2018 SEND TO 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 2092 OF 2018

¶41

Dated this the 08^th day of February, 2018

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Pursuant to a tender invited by the sixth respondent, petitioner participated in the tender and according to the petitioner, petitioner is the lowest among the tenderors. In the tender invited, the fourth respondent society is also a bidder. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that by virtue of Exts. P3 and P8 benefits granted to a society like the fourth respondent, even if petitioner is the lowest bidder, the fourth respondent is likely to be conferred with the contract taking into account the benefit of the scheme specified above. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶44

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and respective Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶45

W.P.(C). No. 2092 OF 2018 2

¶46

Even though notice is served on the other respondents, there is no appearance.

¶47

The sole question remains to be considered is whether Exts.P3 and P8 Government Orders granting benefits to a society like the fourth respondent is entitled to get benefit of the exemptions granted thereunder, in order to finalise the tender proceedings inspite of the said notifications not gazetted by the State Government. The said issue was considered by this Court in W.P. (C).No. 26206/2016 and has rendered a judgment, dated 02.02.2018, wherein I have held that since the said notifications are not gazetted and since in the notice inviting tender, the benefits of the scheme are not put forth, the society like the fourth respondent is not entitled to get the contract conferred on it, on the basis of the said Government Orders.

¶48

The pleadings put forth by the petitioner is under the very same circumstances and after assimilating the facts and reckoning the legal situations, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is also entitled to get

¶49

W.P.(C). No. 2092 OF 2018 3

¶50

the relief that I have granted in the afore-specified writ petition.

¶51

Accordingly, the writ petition will stand allowed. All the findings and stipulations contained in the aforequoted judgment will apply to the petitioner also. The tenders received by the sixth respondent shall be processed without granting any benefits of Exts.P3 and P8 Government Orders and finalise the proceedings, in accordance with law, at the earliest. The questions with respect to the challenge made on Exts. P3 and P8 Government Orders are left open.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶53

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶54

DCS

Charles Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charles Mathew 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekha Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Kalasakarathi Devaki Vs the Special Tahsildar

E.v.Raju Vs Kerala Water Authority

Kanaran K Vs Sri.Suresh

K.P. Moidu Haji Vs the Additional Magistrate, Malappuram

Sri.Antony Thoma Vs State of Kerala