Disposed

Sudheer N.A v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Oct 2020WP(C)/20991/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent Corporation to conduct an enquiry within one month into allegations of bid rigging and cartel formation made against bidders, and held that pending proceedings for the petitioner's bids in relevant taluks remain subject to the enquiry's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry into allegations raised by the petitioner within one month, affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned; pending proceedings to be held s

Sudheer N.A Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C).No.20991 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.20991 OF 2020(Y)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SUDHEER N.A AGED 46 YEARS S/O.N.M.ABDUL KAREEM,NEERUNGAL HOUSE, RAJAGIRI.P.O,SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN SMT.SIKHA S.NAIR SMT.PARVATHY PRADEEP

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶14

2 THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,

¶15

MAVELI BHAVAN,MAVELI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,KOCHI-682019. REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

3 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,MAVELI BHAVAN,

¶17

MAVELI ROAD,GANDHINAGAR,KOCHI-682019.

¶18

4 THE MANAGER,NFSA, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,MAVELI BHAVAN,MAVELI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,KOCHI-682019.

¶19

5 DEPOT ASSISTANT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO TALUK NFSA DEPOT,THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680022.

¶20

WP(C).No.20991 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

6 DEPOT ASSISTANT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO TALUK NFSA DEPOT,CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680307.

¶23

7 DEPOT ASSISTANT MANAGER, SUPPLCO TALUK NFSA DEPOT,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680733.

¶24

8 DEPOT ASSISTANT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO TALUK NFSA DEPOT,THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680001.

¶25

9 JAMES C SEBASTIAN, PROPRIETOR,SEVANAM ENTERPRISES CHIRIYANKANDATH

¶26

HOUSE,FLAT NO.803,MAYA HEIGHTS,PATTURAIKKAL,THIRUVAMBADI.P.O, THRISSUR-680022.

¶27

10 C.J.FRANCIS, S/O JOSEPH, CHEMMANNUR,CHEMMANNUR HOUSE,SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE ROAD, P.O.KERALA VARMA COLLEGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN680011.

¶28

11 CICILY ANTONY, S/O ANTONY,AKKARA HOUSE,ST.MARY'S ROAD, OLLUR.P.O, THRISSUR-680306.

¶29

OTHER PRESENT:

¶30

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER ,GP, SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C).No.20991 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Dated this the 8^th day of October 2020

¶36

The Writ Petition was filed alleging that the 9^th respondent

¶37

is the binami of the 10^th respondent and he has produced the details of vehicles owned by the 10^th respondent. It is stated that last year also there were allegations as against the 9^th respondent that a business cartel has been formed by respondents 9 to 11. On the basis of the enquriy conducted pursuant to the judgment Ext.P2, work was not awarded to the 9^th respondent.

¶38

Though the contention of the petitioner in this Writ

¶39

Petition is that the 9^th respondent is not qualified in accordance with clause 11(g) of Ext.P1, the learned Standing Counsel submits that last year he was not awarded work and he is not disqualified under clause 11(g). However the petitioner has

¶40

submitted Ext.P4 representation pointing out that the 9^th respondent is the binami of 10^th respondent. He does not have the financial stability. Allegations are raised as against the 4^th respondent also stating that his tender was rejected in certain taluks and the details of vehicles furnished by both respondents 9 and 11 are that of the 10^th respondent; he has quoted a very low amount with some ulterior motives etc. Therefore there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to conduct an enquiry in to the allegations raised in Ext.P4 within a period of one month

¶41

WP(C).No.20991 OF 2020

¶42

after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents 9 to 11. Further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 to the extent it relates to the Taluks in which the petitioner has submitted his bids shall be subject to the decision in the enquiry.

¶43

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rkc

WP(C).No.20991 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF T 15.07.2020	HE	E-TENDER	NOTICE	DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY WP(C)NO.564/2019	OF DAT	THE ED 08.01.	JUDGMENT 2019	IN
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDE	REP NT	ORT DATED	02.05.2	019 OF
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF 29.09.2020	THE	REPRESE	NTATION	DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	FOR	M OF AFFI	DAVIT.

Sudheer N.A v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer N.A 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

Shibu Thomas, Vs State of Kerala

Narayana Prabhu S. Vs Corporation Bank

P.P. Antony, Vs District Collector

M/S.M.Y.Associates Vs Executive Engineer

Sunil V.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Advocate Vinod Kumar.P Vs State of Kerala