Disposed

Pmr Construction Company v. the Superintending Engineer

Kerala HC3 Sept 2018WP(C)/2968/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging the rejection of bid submissions for a public work contract. Recognizing the urgent nature of the work, the Court concluded that re-tendering would not prejudice any party and served the public interest.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions closed; proposal to re-tender the work recorded; parties directed to participate in re-tender.

Pmr Construction Company Vs the Superintending… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 12TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2968 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PMR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN676514,REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, P.M.ABDUL SHUKOOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI. K.M. SATHYANATHA MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGH WAY NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶12

3 THE REGIONAL OFFICER MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS MORTH PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶13

4 SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶14

5 TECHINICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶15

6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶16

WP(C).2968 & 12760/18

¶17

¶18

7 MS.RAVEENDRAN K. CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673017.

¶19

8 MS.AF INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, ROYALE PLAZA, BRIDGE ROAD, ALUVA-683101.

¶20

9 MS.AKSHAYA BUILDERS WESTERN ARCADE VELLORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT686661.

¶21

10 MS.EKK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 2ND FLOOR, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIDSTRICT, PIN-683542.

¶22

11 MS.KCP ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED 159, RANGARAJAPURAM MAIN ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI600024.

¶23

12 MS.BEGORRA INFRASTRUCTURES AND PRIVATE LIMITED ANGADI P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689674. BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ SRI.K.BABU THOMAS SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SMT. MARYKUTTY BABU

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.8.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C). 12760/2018, THE COURT ON 3.9.18 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶26

W.P(C).Nos. 2968 & 12760 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

These writ petitions are filed challenging the rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioners for the work of strengthening of a portion of NH-966 under the annual plan for the year 2017-2018. The petitioners' technical bids were disqualified. In the case of the petitioner in W.P(C).No.2968 of 2018, the rejection was on the ground that the bid security submitted online differs from the prescribed format, while the reason in respect of the petitioner in W.P(C).No.12760 of 2018 was that the bid security was not duly submitted online.

¶30

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that since the work is of urgent nature and since the work had been held up due to the pendency of these writ petitions, a decision had been taken to cancel the tender and to re-tender the work in question. It is stated that the petitioners as well as the party respondents can participate in the re-tender of the work and efforts will be taken to see that the work is rendered without delay and the work is allotted accordingly.

¶31

WP(C).2968 & 12760/18

¶32

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent in W.P(C).No.2968 of 2018, who is also the 5^th respondent in W.P(C).No.12760 of 2018, opposed the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader and contended that the work is liable to be awarded in terms of the tender already invited.

¶34

Having heard the leaned counsel on all sides and considering the contentions raised, I am of the opinion that any further delay in the execution of the work will not be in public interest. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the present proposal to re-tender the work will not prejudice any of the petitioners or the party respondents.

¶35

These writ petitions are, therefore, closed recording the submission that the work in question will be re-tendered at the earliest and the petitioners as well as the party respondents are free to participate in the re-tender.

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

vgs

WP(C).2968 & 12760/18

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATIONS FOR BIDS DATED 8.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 13.12.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 10.1.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE DATED 9.1.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 11.1.2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORTS PUBLISHED ONLINE BY THE TENDERING INVITING AUTHORITY DATED 11.11.2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM PUBLISHED ALONG WITH EXT-P6. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MALAPPURAM. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE TECHNICAL BID EVALUATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE ON 27.1.2018 AT 15.38.34 HRS. EXHIBIT P10(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 27.1.2018. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED FROM THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MALAPPURAM DATED 29.11.2017. EXHIBIT P13 A A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO THE WORK IRQP 2012-2013

¶44

WP(C).2968 & 12760/18

¶45

¶46

PROVIDING 50 MM BM AND 25MM SDBC BETWEEN KILOMETRE 64/000 AND 87/000 OF NH 213ISSED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, MALAPPURAM.

¶47

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.4.2018 IN WPC.NO.12760 OF 2018.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT R7 A TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE BID, WHICH BECAME INVALIED ON 16.3.2017.

¶50

EXHIBIT R7 B TRUE COPY OF BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION. EXHIBIT R7 C TRUE COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE FOR RS.51,90,000/- ISSUED BY PUBJAB NATIONAL BANK.

¶51

EXHIBIT R7 D TRUE COPY OF MINUTE OF MEETING OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R7 E TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE E-TENDER NOTICE FOR THE WORK IN EXT.P1. EXHIBIT R7 F TRUE COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE FOR RS.61,80,000/- TYPED IN STAMPED PAPER NOS.B.P.759520 AND B.P.75921. EXHIBIT R7 G TRUE COPY OF BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE WORK IN EXT.P1. EXHIBIT R7 H TRUE COPY OF TENDER SUMMARY REPORT REJECTING THE TECHNICAL BID OF THE PETITIONER DOWNLOADED. EXHIBIT R7 I TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RW/NH-12014/49 2017-KL/P-7 ALLOTTING RS.7159.30 LAKHS FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORKS IN 2018-19 STIPULATING VALIDITY PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

¶52

/TRUE COPY/

¶53

PS TO JUDGE

Pmr Construction Company v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pmr Construction Company 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

Thechikotukavu Poothirikavu Devaswom Vs the State of Kerala

Dileep Kumar.P.R Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Bright Vs the State of Kerala

Albin Baby Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha M P Vs the General Manager

M/S.Ernad Engineering Enterpirses Vs State of Kerala