Dismissed

K.N Mohanan v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2021WP(C)/15465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of his tender and subsequent re-tender, alleging arbitrary proceedings. The court held the authorities justified in rejecting the second bid due to technical omission, deeming the petitioner's bid a single tender liable for rejection under government guidelines. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the petition to quash the rejection of the tender and to direct the issuance of a fresh tender.

K.N Mohanan Vs Government of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15465 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.N MOHANAN, AGED 67 YEARS, NARAYANEEYAM, MADAN NADA, THEKKEVILA P.O, KOLLAM 691 016

¶8

BY ADV SRI.B.ANANTHU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, JALAVIJANA BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003

¶12

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, KOLLAM, KERALA 691 001 4 KANCHANAM BUILDERS, KANCHANAM PARUTHIYARA, ODANAVATTOM P.O, KOLLAM-691 512, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR R SURESH KANCHANAM

¶13

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.15465/2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2021

¶19

The petitioner, who is an A Class contractor, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P7 and to direct the 3^rd respondent to accept the tender submitted by the petitioner and to award the work to the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner states that the 3^rd respondent publish Ext.P2 tender notification for the work of “Rehabilitation of Kurungal L.I. Scheme in Chathannoor Panchayath”. The petitioner submitted his bid pursuant to Ext.P2.

¶21

The 4^th respondent also submitted his tender. The bid submitted by the 4^th respondent was of Rs.35,52,981.03/-. The petitioner's bid was the lowest. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent verified both the bids. According to the petitioner, the bid was accepted on 29.06.2021.

¶22

WP(C).No.15465/2021

¶23

¶24

However on 26.07.2021, the petitioner was served with a message to the effect that his tender is rejected, it being single tender. The 3^rd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P6 re-tender Corrigendum and decided to re-tender the work.

¶25

The petitioner would submit that the 3^rd respondent had accepted both the tenders submitted by the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent after scrutiny on 29.06.2021. When there were two valid tenders, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's bid stating that it is a single tender. The petitioner further submitted that, if the tender submitted by the petitioner was single tender, the respondents ought not have opened the financial bid and publish the quote.

¶26

In the present case, the respondents have not only opened the financial bids but disclosed the amount of tender quoted by the petitioner also. After disclosing the amount of bid of the petitioner, it would be highly improper and irregular for the respondents to go for a fresh tender. The petitioner would submit that the bid made by the 4^th respondent was an

¶27

WP(C).No.15465/2021

¶28

¶29

acceptable bid and the only defect in the alleged bid was the absence of Form Nos.83 and 84, which defect could have been permitted to be cured. Respondents 1 to 3 rejected the bid of the 4^th respondent in order to render the petitioner's bid single tender. The proceedings of respondents 1 to 3 are highly arbitrary and liable to be interfered by this Court, contended the petitioner.

¶30

Respondents 1 to 3 filed a statement. The respondents submitted that out of the two bids received, bid of one individual was rejected and the other one is qualified. Therefore, the petitioner's tender became a single tender. As per the detailed guidelines provided by the Government in the Government Order dated 30.07.2015, if only one bid is received or one bid is found to be valid after technical evaluation, such a bid is termed as single tender/bid, which is liable to be rejected.

¶31

Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that on scrutinisation

¶32

of the documents, it was found that the petitioner has

¶33

WP(C).No.15465/2021

¶34

¶35

uploaded all documents. However, the 4^th respondent uploaded only the notice inviting tender instead of NIT with Form Nos.83 and 84. The standard bidding document provided that the bidder shall upload a complete set of bid documents with NIT. As the bid of the 4^th respondent was defective, it was rejected and consequently the petitioner's tender remained as a single tender. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have no other way than to resort to retender.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶38

The arguments raised in the writ petition and the pleadings would show that there were only two bidders for the work of “Rehabilitation of Kurungal L.I. Scheme in Chathannoor Panchayath”. The bid submitted by the 4^th submitted was rejected for the reason that the 4^th respondent did not upload Form Nos.83 and 84. As the bid of the 4^th

¶39

WP(C).No.15465/2021

¶40

¶41

respondent was lacking in requisite details, this Court is of the view that respondents 1 to 3 were justified in rejecting the bid of the 4^th respondent. When the bid of the 4^th respondent is rejected, the tender submitted by the petitioner becomes a single tender and in view of the Government Order dated 30.07.2015, it falls within the definition of a single tender/bid, which is liable to be rejected. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the rejection of the petitioner's single tender is justified.

¶42

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner also participated in the re-tender proceedings pursuant to the interim orders of this Court and the petitioner has been again become the single tender. As the re-tender proceedings are not a subject matter in this writ petition, this Court does not express any opinion on merit on this aspect. Respondents 1 to 3 will be at liberty to proceed with the re-tender in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶43

WP(C).No.15465/2021

¶44

¶45

would submit that as per Annexure 7 Government Order, if in a re-tender, again there is only single tender, then the authorities will be at liberty to accept the said single tender. The said issue is left open.

¶46

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C).No.15465/2021

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15465/2021

¶52

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NO. 02/EE/MI/2021-2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATE CORRIGENDUM OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF WORK/ITEM WITH THE RATES QUOTED BY BOTH THE BIDDERS Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT DTD 26-07-2021 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER CORRIGENDUM DTD 26-07-2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RE TENDER DETAILS OF THE SAME WORK.

K.N Mohanan v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N Mohanan v. Government 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

Sathyadevan K Vs Kerala Water Authority

Jacob George Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Fathima Shaniba Vs the Secretary

Biji Sanjeev Vs the Branch Manager

Ranny Taluk Contract Co. Operative Society Limited Vs State of Kerala

Mon Joseph Vs State of Kerala