Dismissed

Adoor Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2021WP(C)/24337/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a tender submitted by a labour co-operative society. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the tender could not be reinstated because the petitioner failed to meet eligibility criteria for price preference required to become the lowest bidder.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No interference with the impugned orders cancelling the tender is granted.

Adoor Labour Contract Co-Operative Society… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(C).No.24337/2020-N

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.24337 OF 2020(N)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

ADOOR LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. Q 443, KODUMON P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA 691 555, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARUNAKARAN NAIR T.N., AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, THAYYIL HOUSE, KODUMON. P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA 691 555.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) SHRI.STEPHEN JACOB SHRI.MONI GEORGE SHRI.VISHNU RAJAGOPAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS).

¶14

3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.

¶15

4 THE EXECUTVIE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION), COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645.

¶16

5 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 523.

¶17

R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C).No.24337/2020-N

¶20

¶21

P.V.ASHA, J .

¶22

W.P(c) No.24337 of 2020-N

¶23

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2021

¶24

The petitioner is a Labour Contract Co-operative Society. It is aggrieved by the cancellation of its tender as per Ext.P9 order.

¶25

Pursuant to the notice inviting tenders issued by the 4^th respondent, the petitioner had submitted its tender for the work of construction of retaining wall in Pandalam-Aaranmula Road Ch 0/500-6/00 roads and received Ext.P1 bid submission confirmation dated 06.10.2020. Pointing out the amount quoted by the lowest bidder, the petitioner, in its representations Exts.P5 and P6 claimed that being a labour contract co-operative society, it is entitled to10% price preference as per Exts.P2 and P3 Government orders and in that event it is entitled to be treated as lowest bidder and hence to be awarded the work. It is stated that the 4^th respondent thereupon as per Ext.P7 letter sought clarification from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies as to the person who was authorised to submit tender on behalf of the petitioner society. It was stated that the tender documents were signed by the Secretary and the digital signature was that of one Sri Karunakaran Nair. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar was asked to clarify whether the person authorised was President or Secretary. The Assistant Secretary thereupon as per Ext.P8 letter informed the 4^th respondent that Sri Karunakaran Nair, who was the honorary secretary was authorised to submit the tender using his

¶26

W.P(C).No.24337/2020-N

¶27

¶28

digital signature. The petitioner has also produced its Ext.P9 resolution authorising Sri Karunakaran Nair to sign the tender documents and deciding to use his degital signature in it. As per Ext.P10 letter dated 03.11.2020, the Executive

¶29

Engineer informed the Assistant Registrar that the tender submitted by the petitioner society was cancelled since the tender was submitted by the Secretary; whereas the digital signature was that of Sri Karunakaran Nair and that no documents relating to authorisation by the society, were submitted or uploaded along with the tender. It was also stated that in future, details regarding the authorisation, if any, should be submitted/uploaded along with the tender and that the authorised person himself shall participate in the tender.

¶30

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging cancellation of the tender pointing out that Sri Karunakaran Nair is the honorary secretary of the society and digital signature was also that of Sri Karunakaran Nair. It was also pointed out that the Society has already authorised the honorary secretary to submit the tender.

¶31

The respondents have filed a statement. It is stated that the petitioner society quoted the 7^th lowest amount. In the tender submitted by the petitioner, the documents were digitally signed by Mr. Karunakaran Nair; but the contact name was shown as Vijayan Nair and designation was shown as Owner. It is stated that since the society did not produce any documents authorising the person who signed the documents to submit the tender, and the name of owner and that of the owner of the digital signature was different, the 10% price preference could not be granted and tender could not be accepted. It is stated that though clarification was

¶32

W.P(C).No.24337/2020-N

¶33

¶34

sought from the Assistant Registrar as to the person authorised by the society and the Assistant Registrar had informed that Sri Karunakaran Nair, who is the Honorary Secretary, has been authorised to submit the tender using his digital signature, the Society had not uploaded such an authorisation along with the tender. It did not also produce the authorisation along with the hard copy of the tender. It is stated that the decision of the committee authorising Karunakaran Nair was received by the respondents only on 03.11.2020. It is stated that the internal committee had decided to reject the tender of the society on verification of the documents and it was decided to accept the tender which is quoted the lowest rate. Apart from that the 4^th respondent has in para.5 of the statement, stated that as per Ext.P2 Government order, a B class society should have a paid secretary or Manager as its employee and that the petitioner society which is a class B licensee, participated in the tender by appointing an honorary secretary instead of appointing a paid secretary, contrary to the aforesaid order.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the only reason stated for rejection relates to the name and the digital signature and that an objection relating to absence of paid secretary for the society was never raised by the respondents while rejecting the tender. Therefore, it was stated that the respondents cannot be heard to raise such a contention in the statement. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an objection which is not raised against the order cancelling tender, it is seen that such a contention is raised on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner himself as Ext.P2 which provides that there should be a paid secretary for each of the 3 classes of the

¶36

W.P(C).No.24337/2020-N

¶37

¶38

societies. The petitioner society does not fulfil that condition.

¶39

The petitioner has also produced the documents Exts.P11 to P16 pointing out that the petitioner society was awarded various work granting the price preference in accordance with Ext.P2 and P3 orders despite the fact that there has been only an honorary secretary. But the fact that a mistake has been committed by the respondents, cannot be a reason for interfering with the proceedings relating to tender in question in the Writ Petition. 7. The respondents have already decided to select another person and confirmed the bid with the person who quoted the lowest amount. If the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite conditions stipulated in Ext.P2 read with Ext.P3 government orders, it would not be eligible for price preference. Only if price preference is granted, the petitioner would come as the lowest tenderer. Therefore, even if the tender is found not liable to be cancelled, it would not be the L1 except in accordance with Ext.P2 read with Ext.P3 orders.

¶40

Therefore, I do not find any circumstances warranting interference with the impugned orders. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶42

rtr/

¶43

W.P(C).No.24337/2020-N

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION DATE	BID SUBMISSION D 06.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 13/11/1997.	G.O. (MS0 NO. 135/97/CO-OP
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 19/3/2004.	G.O. (MS) NO. 44/04/PWD
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER ID : 2020	BOQ SUMMARY DETAILS OF THE PWD 388587-1.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE PET RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED 23.10.2020 ITIONER TO THE 4TH
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 28.10.2020 SUBMIT THE 4TH RESPONDEN UNDER THE RIGHT T	APPLICATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER TO T SEEKING INFORMATION O INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED 27.10.2020 RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.	REPLY DATED 03.11.2020 RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 12.10.2019 OF THE PETITIONER SOCIET	RESOLUTION NO. 2 DATED MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE Y.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 03.11.2020 RESPONDENT TO THE TO THE PETITIONER	COMMUNICATION CUM ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH 5TH RESPONDENT WITH COPY .
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION DATE THE WORK OF PROVI OFFICE BUILDING I RANGE AND THE WOR ISSUED TO THE PET TO THE SAID TENDE	BID SUBMISSION D 11.11.2019 IN RESPECT OF DING ROOFING TO THE RANGE N NADUVATHUMOOZHY FOREST K ORDER DATED 25.11.2019 ITIONER SOCIETY PURSUANT R.

¶48

W.P(C).No.24337/2020-N

¶49

¶50

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION DATED 11.11.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DFO OFFICE ROOM AT KONNI AND THE WORK ORDER DATED 25.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY PURSUANT TO THE SAID TENDER. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION DATED 11.11.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE WORK OF CONCRETING COUPE ROAD OF NEERAMIKULAM OF KARIPPANTHODU FOREST STATION AND THE WORK ORDER DATED 25.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY PURSUANT TO THE SAID TENDER. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION DATED 11.11.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE WORK OF IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SAHYASEEMA – VELLAMTHETTI ROAD IN MANNARAPARA FOREST RANGE AND THE WORK ORDER DT.25.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY PURSUANT TO THE SAID TENDER. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION DATED 26.11.2019 AS AGAINST TENDER ID NO.2019_IRRIG_313758_2 IN RESPECT OF THE WORK OF RECTIFICATION OF CANAL OF THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 5.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY PURSUANT TO THE SAID TENDER.

¶51

EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION
	CONFIRMATION DATED 26.11.2019 AS AGAINST
	TENDER ID NO.2019_IRRIG_320277_1 IN RESPECT
	OF THE WORK OF RECTIFICATION OF CANAL OF
	THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND THE SELECTION
	NOTICE DATED 5.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE
	PETITIONER SOCIETY PURSUANT TO THE SAID
	TENDER.

¶52

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.135/97/CO-OP DATED 13.11.1997.

Adoor Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adoor Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. 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

Sreelekshmi Baiju Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Benny Mathew Vs Mylavarapu Venkata Ramakrishna Teja

Subrahmanya Y. Vs the District Collector, Kasaragod

Karmmali James Vs Suhair K.

Abdul Azeez Vs the Branch Manager

Tritvam Apartment Owners Association, Vs State of Kerala