Disposed

M/S.Pushkarraj Constructions Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India

Kerala HC16 Oct 2019WP(C)/19334/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in finalizing a tender process where the petitioners were the successful bidder. The court recorded the submission of the Central Government that allegations of corruption were under CBI enquiry, thus causing the delay, and directed the respondents to finalize the tender expeditiously in favour of the petitioners. The confidentiality of the bid was also to e

What did the court decide?

The court recorded the submission that the tender process will be finalized expeditiously in favour of the first petitioner and recorded the undertaking regarding the bid validity.

M/S.Pushkarraj Constructions Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.19334 OF 2019(N)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M/S.PUSHKARRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD. 32,K.B SARANI, DUM DUM, KOLKATA 700 080 REPRSENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ROBIN CHAKRABORTY

¶8

2 BHARAT BHASIN, DIRECTOR, M/S. PUSHKARRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, 32, K.B SARANI, DUM DUM, KOLKATA 700 080

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.UMMUL FIDA SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NW) MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, NAVAL BASE P.O, COCHIN 682 004

¶12

2 CHIEF ENGINEER, MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES (NW) NAVAL BASE P.O, COCHIN 682 004

¶13

3 DIRECTOR (CONTRACTS) OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER NW MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, NAVAL BASE P.O, COCHIN 682 004.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.KRISHNA S. CGC SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2019, THE COURT ON 16-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.19334 of 2019

¶18

W.P.(C) No.19334 of 2019

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The first petitioner is a company and the second petitioner is one its directors. The first petitioner has participated in a tender process floated by the second respondent for execution of a civil work. Ext.P1 is the invitation made by the second respondent in this connection. It is stated that though the first petitioner was found to be technically qualified and the lowest bidder in the tender process, the tender process commenced in terms of Ext.P1 invitation has not been finalized yet. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶21

2 . Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶22

The learned Central Government Counsel, on instructions, pointed out that the very same work was tendered earlier and there were certain allegations of corruption against one of the directors of the first petitioner as

¶23

also the then Chief Engineer in connection with the tender

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No.19334 of 2019

¶26

process; that the said allegations were being enquired into by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the said tender process, in the circumstances, was dropped. It was pointed out that since the first petitioner company came out successful in the present tender, the controlling authorities of the second respondent thought it fit to obtain clearance from the Central Bureau of Investigation for finalizing the tender in favour of the first petitioner and it is on account of the said reason that the delay occurred in the matter of finalizing the tender. It was also pointed out by the learned Central Government Counsel that since the enquiry made against the erstwhile director of the first petitioner company did not culminate ultimately in any charge sheet, it has been decided to finalise Ext.P1 tender process and the same will be finalized expeditiously in favour of the first petitioner.

¶27

In the light of the submissions made by the learned Central Government Counsel, the writ petition is closed recording the submission made by the learned Central Government Counsel that the tender process referred to in the writ petition will be finalized expeditiously in favour of the first petitioner. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) No.19334 of 2019

¶30

for the petitioners that the petitioners would keep the validity of their offer for two more months to enable the respondents to finalize the tender is also recorded.

¶31

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.19334 of 2019

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX TO THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER WITH RESPECT OF 72 CRORES TENDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08-10-2018

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15/03/2019

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/04/2019 WITH RESPECT OF THE PROVISION OF DEFICIENT MARRIED ACCOMMODATION FOR SAILORS (192 LEADINGS ) AT KOCHI EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18/04/2019

¶40

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO. 12208/2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A NO. 1359/2019 DATED 13/06/2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN S.L.P NO. 13802-05/2019 DATED 21/06/2019 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE WLR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 2018 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/06/2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08/06/2019

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.19334 of 2019

¶43

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTERS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/04/2019

¶44

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTERS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/06/2019

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

PA TO JUDGE

¶48

M/S.Pushkarraj Constructions Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Pushkarraj Constructions Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India

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

J.Aneeze, Vs State of Kerala

V N Narayanan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs the State of Kerala

Jayakumar.v. Vs the State Bank of India

Snehalatha, Vs State of Kerala

Yoonus T.B., Vs the District Collector