This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's successful tender bid for plantation trees. The Court held that the Managing Director's discretion to reject tenders without reason is final as per tender terms and the decision was not illegal given the specific procedural history.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
V.CHANDRAN AGED 62 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVAN, PROPRIETOR, CHITRA ENTERPRISES, PANGODE P.O, VIA KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS. K.B.GANGESH SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
RESPONDENT/S:
BY ADVS. SMT.KABANI DINESH, SC, KFDC P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE CHACKO SIMON SIDHARTH SABU TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021
2
E.S.FIROS
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GP(FOREST)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 22824 of 2021
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2021
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 tender notification for sale of Eucalyptus trees in various plantations of the 2nd respondent was notified on 15.9.2020. Tender/auction pursuant to Ext.P1 was on 7.10.2020 and the petitioner is the successful bidder in respect of two plantation in Thiruvananthapuram division. On 14.10.2020, the tenders were confirmed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid two plantations. On 6.11.2020, the agreement was executed in respect of the first plantation with an extent of 49.24 hectares by the petitioner. On 11.11.2020, Ext.P2 requisition was issued by the 3rd respondent to execute the agreement in respect of the second planation having an extent of 51.9 hectares. Thereafter, on 23.11.2020,Ext.P3 letter was sent by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent intimating his inability to execute work in respect of the second plantation alleging that it was inferior quality of eucalyptus trees. On 24.11.2020, Ext.P4 letter was issued by the
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021 4
3rd respondent again requiring the petitioner to execute the agreement. Again Ext.P5 reply was sent by the petitioner on 28.11.2020. Subsequently, on 18.2.2021, as per Ext.P6 proceedings of the 2nd respondent, it was directed to reauction the second plantation at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Ext.P7 is the resale notification of the second plantation, which was on 8.9.2021. Subsequently, on 4.10.2021, tender/auction pursuant to Ext.P7 was conducted wherein the petitioner again became the successful bidder at a lower cost and paid EMD. The petitioner was the only bidder. On 7.10.2021, the second plantation was re-tendered after cancelling the auction held on 4.10.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the same is done without assigning any reason and without notice to the petitioner. On 19.10.2021, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation to the 2nd respondent requesting for cancellation of re-tender held on 7.10.2021. Ext.R2(c) is the notification dated 8.9.2021 in which it is stated that if the auction was not conducted on 4.10.2021, it will be held on 7.10.2021 or 13.10.2021. Aggrieved by the stand of the respondents, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers :
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021
5
“i) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to confirm the resale of eucalyptus trees in 51.9 hectors of plantation in Block No.VII/6,7,8,9,10 Sankily -Bit-II, Arippa Sub Unit, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P7 notification in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the tender/auction held on 4.10.2021.
ii) a declaration that the petitioner is eligible to participate in the resale of eucalyptus trees in 51.9 hectors of plantation in Block No.VII/6,7,8,9,10 Sankily-Bit-II, Arippa Sub Unit, Thiruvananthapuram in response to Ext. P7 and that the retender of the aforesaid plantation on 07.10.2021 by cancelling the tender/auction held on 04.10.2021 is violative of the terms contained in Ext. P7 and therefore illegal;
iii) a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P9 representation preferred by the petitioner before confirming the bid of the 4th respondent in respect of the plantation in issue as held on 07.10.2021;
iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and allow this petition with all costs.”
learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I also heard the counsel appeared for the 4th respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader appeared for the 1st respondent.
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021 6
was the successful bidder as far as three plantations are concerned. But the petitioner executed agreement with the respondents only for one plantation. It is also an admitted fact that as per Ext.P6 proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the retender of the second plantation was ordered at the risk and cost of the petitioner. According to the Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner's tender was rejected on 4.10.2021 because of Ext.P6 proceedings. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner alone participated on 4.10.2021 and that is why it was adjourned to 7.10.2021. The Standing Counsel takes me through Clause 1.23 of Ext.P7, which is the terms and conditions of the tender/auction. It will be better to extract clause 1.23 of Ext.P7.
“1.23 Acceptance or otherwise of tenders/auctions : The acceptance of tender is subject to confirmation by the Managing Director, Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd., who may confirm or reject any tender, including the highest tender, without assigning any reasons thereof. His decision in in this respect shall be final. More opening of tenders by the officer cannot be deemed as acceptance of the tender, unless it is confirmed by the competent authority.”
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021 7
confirm or reject any tender including the highest tender, without assigning any reasons thereof. It is also stated that his decision in this respect shall be final. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no rejection of the tender and the same is not communicated to him. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel submitted that the tender submitted by the petitioner on 4.10.2021 was rejected and that is why it was conducted on 7.10.2021. On 4.10.2021 and 7.10.2021, it was a public auction. From Clause 1.23 of Ext.P7, it is clear that it is the discretion of the Managing Director to dismiss and reject a tender. Admittedly, as per Ext.P6 proceedings, it is held that the re-tender was ordered at the risk and cost of the petitioner. In such situation, I cannot say that the stand of the Managing Director to reject the tender of the petitioner is illegal or it is a matter to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, I think there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
SD/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
SKS
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021
8
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22824/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P1 | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. C1-1554/2020 DATED 15-09-2020 |
|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11-11-2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23-11-2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24-11-2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28-11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit P6 | TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-02-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit P7 | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 08-09-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit P8 | TRUE COPY OF EMD RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 04-10- 2021 |
| Exhibit P9 | TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19-10- 2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| Exhibit P10 | PHOTOGRAPHS OF SPLIT WOOD STALKED IN THE PLANTATION |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R2(A) : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C1-1554/20 DATED 14.10.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
WP(C) NO. 22824 OF 2021 9
EXT.R2(B) : PHOTOCOPY OF THE RE-TENDER NOTICE DTD. 26.2.2021 EXT.R2(C) : PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUCITON CUM SALE NOTICE DATED 8.9.2021. EXT.R4(A) : TRUE COPY LETTER ORDER NO.C1-1485/21 DATED 22.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender in the public auction was legal given the terms and conditions.
Whether the decision of the Managing Director to reject the highest tender without assigning reasons is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V. CHANDRAN
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED TO THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
DIVISIONAL MANAGER KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
MIDLAND TIMBERS
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
