Partly allowed

P.I. Liyakath Ali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2021WP(C)/25988/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the disqualification of a transporter from bidding for tenders due to past dealings in rice business, and sought termination of disputed orders. The Court found the disqualification valid under tender clauses. It allowed the petition only to set aside the order terminating existing contracts, permitting termination with notice.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Order dated 20.11.2020 (Ext.P12(a)) terminating existing contracts. Respondents may terminate existing contracts with proper notice.

P.I. Liyakath Ali Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/14TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.25988 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.I. LIYAKATH ALI, AGED 54, S/O IBRAHIM, PROPRIETOR, GOLD STAR, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 553.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAMED YOUSEFF T.M.(SR) SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SRI.SUBIN K SUDHEER

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELIBHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶12

3 DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 553.

¶13

4 DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, IDUKKI TALUK, KATTAPPANA P.O., PIN-685 553, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

5 DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, DEVEKULAM TALUK, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 613.

¶15

6 MANAGER, NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT(NFSA), SUPPLYCO HEAD OFFICE, MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶16

7 THE VIGILANCE MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, (SUPPLYCO), MAVELIBHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶17

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶18

¶19

8 MOHAMMED ISMAIL, SAFAMANZIL, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 553.

¶20

9 THE MANAGING PARTNER, AST ENTERPRISES, SCB BUILDING, AMBALAMPADY, MEKKADAMPU P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-682 316.

¶21

10 P.A. PAULACHAN, THIRUTHINADHI HOUSE, CHAMBANNUR, ANGAMALI SOUTH P.O., PIN-683572. 11 SAM JOSEPH, AGE NOT KNOWN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, VALIYAPARAMBIL, CHELAKKOMBU P.O., KARUKACHAL PIN 686 540 (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 19.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.3/2021)

¶22

R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN R2-R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R8-R9 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) R10 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU R10 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.25988/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2021

¶28

The petitioner is a Transporting Contractor with the 2^nd respondent-Supplyco since 2017. Ext.P1 series would show that the petitioner has been transporter of Supplyco. By Ext.P2, tenders were invited for transporting contracts for various Taluks. The petitioner submitted tenders for Idukki, Devikulam and Udumbanchola Taluks. The technical bids were opened on 17.09.2020 by the Technical Evaluation Committee of respective Taluks and Technical evaluations were made. The petitioner's technical bid was cleared by the authorities finding no defects or draw backs. The petitioner was expecting that on opening the financial bids, he will be awarded the contract in the three taluks.

¶29

However, on 07.10.2020, the Vigilance officer of

¶30

the Supplyco issued a report to the authorities informing that

¶31

¶32

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶33

the petitioner has been engaged in rice business. On that ground, the 2^nd respondent rejected the bids of the petitioner.

¶34

Aggrieved by the rejection of technical bids of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 08.10.2020 to the Managing Director, Supplyco and the Depot Manager. In the representation, the petitioner submitted that he is not dealing in wholesale/retail business of rice and that he had stopped in dealing rice business long back. As there was no positive response from the respondents, the petitioner was forced to file WP(C)No. 22013/2020 before this Court. This Court directed the Managing Director of Supplyco to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass orders on his representation within a period of two weeks. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P11(a) written statement before the Managing Director of Supplyco. However, this representation was rejected by the respondents as per Ext.P12 order dated 10.11.2020.

¶35

¶36

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶37

The petitioner would submit that the Vigilance Officer submitted a report adverse to the petitioner on the basis of a complaint preferred by one Sam Joseph. The said Sam Joseph was an employee of the brother-in-law of the 8^th respondent and the 8^th respondent is a transporting contractor. The petitioner would further submit that on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer and rejection of the bids of the petitioner, a further order Ext.P12(a) was passed by the respondents, whereby it was directed that in view of the findings against the petitioner, the contracts of the petitioner if any subsisting in any place, shall also be terminated.

¶38

The petitioner challenges the impugned orders at

¶39

Exts.P4, P4(a) to P4(d), P8(a), P12 and P12(a), in this writ petition on the following grounds: The Vigilance Officer of Supplyco has no power or authority to order that the bids of the petitioner should be rejected. The petitioner submits that he was formerly a headload worker. Being a former

¶40

¶41

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶42

headload worker, the petitioner is in a position to get loading and unloading works done at a comparatively low but reasonable rates. This advantage of the petitioner made him a contractor who can quote lesser amount for transportation contracts. Therefore the rival contractors were waiting to oust the petitioner from the field at any cost. The complaint by the aforesaid Sam Joseph and adverse report filed by the Vigilance Officer is a result of the vengeance of the rival contractors.

¶43

The petitioner further pointed out that technical bids were open and the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was long thereafter, after a period of 20 days. This itself would show that the rejection is pre-planned and executed.

¶44

The petitioner would further submit that he is not a dealer in rice. However, at the instance of the Supplyco itself, more than 8 months before the tender date, the petitioner had supplied a limited quantity of branded item of

¶45

¶46

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶47

rice to the Supplyco. That isolated supply done at instance of the Supplyco more than 8 months back, cannot be taken to described the petitioner as a dealer in rice. Even if an isolated transaction can be relied on to treat the petitioner as a dealer, the respondents ought to have noted that the petitioner dealt with the rice sale eight months ago and thereafter the petitioner did not indulge in sale of rice.

¶48

The petitioner would further submit that Clause (11) (e) of Ext.P2 is not intended to apply in such circumstances. Clause 11(e) provides that those persons or his/her close relatives dealing wholesale/retail business of rice/wheat in the State are not eligible for apply for the tender. The GST licence of the petitioner would show that the petitioner is not a dealer in rice. The isolated instance occurred eight months ago will not disqualify the petitioner under Clause 11 (e) of Ext.P2 tender.

¶49

The petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daffodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and

¶50

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶51

¶52

another v. State of U.P. and another [2019 KHC 7250] to contend that even though the issue involved is a commercial transaction relating to tender, when such gross illegalities are brought to the notice of this Court, this Court can definitely exercise the power of judicial review. No adverse orders can be passed against any person without giving him an opportunity to represent. The petitioner has been branded as ineligible to apply for tender without he being extended with an opportunity of hearing.

¶53

The learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner further argued that the 8^th respondent did not upload the requisite affidavit along with technical bids for Udumbanchola and Idukki Taluks. The 8^th respondent was the lowest tenderer in the financial bid for Chingavanam FCI to Kattappanna and Angamaly FCI to PDS Kattappana. However the 8^th respondent unilaterally resiled from those bids. As the 8^th respondent resiled from bids, his other bids cannot be considered and the entire

¶54

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶55

¶56

EMD has to be forfeited.

¶57

Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 submitted that the rejection of the bids of the petitioner and selection of contractors, were done perfectly in accordance with law. After the opening of technical bids and before opening of financial bid, respondents 1 to 7 learnt that the petitioner has been doing business in rice violating the conditions in Clause 11(e) of Ext.P2. Therefore the bids submitted by the petitioner were rejected. Contracts were awarded to the lowest tender.

¶58

The petitioner has conceded that he has been doing business in rice. The contention of the petitioner that he has dealt with only in branded rice, not affecting the business of the Supplyco, cannot be accepted. The petitioner was ineligible to bid. As the petitioner was found to be disqualified, the respondents issued Ext.P12(a) letter dated 20.11.2020 directing that if the petitioner is currently doing any transportation work, those works should be

¶59

¶60

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶61

cancelled. The respondents 2 to 7 have acted bona fide in accordance with the terms of the tender notification and the tender conditions. The interim order passed by this Court is affecting supply of essential articles in the area and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

The learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9 pointed out that under clause 11(e) of Ext. P2, there is no distinction between branded rice or any other rice. Anybody who is dealing in rice is ineligible to bid and the petitioner was found disqualified on the basis of an enquiry made by the Vigilance Officer. There was no undue haste in passing Ext.P12 order. In the judgment in WP(C) No. 22013/2020, this court ordered to consider and dispose of the petition of the petitioner within two weeks.

¶63

The learned counsel for 8^th and 9^th respondents further pointed out that the petitioner has admitted that he has been dealing in rice business. Still in the affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext.R8(a), the petitioner stated that he is

¶64

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶65

¶66

not doing any such business. The petitioner has filed a false affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9 stated that pursuant to the opening of the financial bids, the 9^th respondent has been appointed as contractor and work orders are also issued. In the circumstances, the writ petition is only to be dismissed, contended the counsel for respondent 8 and 9.

¶67

The counsel for the 10^th respondent argued that the petitioner himself has given a statement before the Vigilance Officer admitting that he has dealings in Ponni and biriyani rice. Now the petitioner cannot turn around and submit that he has no dealing in rice items. The counsel for the 10^th respondent supported the arguments made on behalf of respondents 2 to 9.

¶68

I have heard learned senior counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to

¶69

¶70

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶71

7, learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9 and learned counsel appearing for the 10^th respondent.

¶72

The Clause 11 (e) of Ext.P2 tender notice stipulates that those persons or his/her close relatives dealing in wholesale/retail business of rice/wheat in the State are not eligible for applying for the tender. On the basis of a complaint received from one Sam Joseph, the Vigilance Officer caused an enquiry and found that the petitioner has been supplying rice to Supplyco. As the petitioner was dealing in rice trade, the Vigilance Officer issued Ext.P8(a) proceedings finding that grant of contract to the petitioner who is dealing in rice trade, is against the conditions of tender notification and is likely to generate complaints in future. On the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer, the respondents disqualified the petitioner from technical clearance. This court do not find it unreasonable.

¶73

The contention of the petitioner is that technical

¶74

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶75

¶76

bids were originally opened and processed on 17.09.2020. As on that date the petitioner’s technical bid was also cleared. After 20 days, on 07.10.2020, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. This is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable. In this regard, it is to be noted that when the technical bids were processed on 17.09.2020, there were no complaints against the petitioner to the effect that he has been involved in rice business. However subsequently the Vigilance Officer of Supplyco found that the petitioner has been supplying rice to the Supplyco itself. As the said factor was against the conditions of tender, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected.

¶77

The petitioner's further contention is that due to

¶78

his past experience in the loading unloading area, he was in an advantageous position to quote lowest bids and knowing this advantage of the petitioner, other competitors wanted to oust him from bidding. Ext. P8(a) was issued by the Vigilance Officer on 07.10.2020 and on the same day the

¶79

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶80

¶81

technical bid of the petitioner which was earlier cleared, was rejected. Ext. P8(a) was therefore a design only to debar the petitioner from bidding. This Court finds that Ext. P8(a) would indicate that the said order was not issued spontaneously. Ext. P8(a) refers to a proceeding of Manager, NFSA dated 04.09.2020. Therefore it is evident that the Vigilance officer has conducted an enquiry on the basis of a complaint received earlier and Ext. P8(a) is only a result of such enquiry. The petitioner would contend that the Vigilance Officer of Supplyco has no authority to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P8(a). This Court is not inclined to accept the said argument. Dealing in rice and wheat is a disqualification for bidders. If there are complaints against the bidders in this regard, the Supplyco can make appropriate enquiry through a Vigilance Officer. Ext.P8(a) is a result of such enquiry. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in Supplyco accepting enquiry report of its Vigilance Officer.

¶82

¶83

WP(C)No.25988/2020

¶84

The further contention of the petitioner is that after clearing his technical bid, the petitioner was disqualified during the processing of financial bid, which is impermissible. But from the pleadings made by the respondents 2 to 7 and the documents made available to this Court, it is evident that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was before 4:30 PM on 07.10.2020 and opening of the financial bids was after 4:30 PM. The respondents 2 to 7 specifically stated that due to the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, his financial bid was not opened at all. In such circumstances it cannot be said that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on 07.10.2020 has vitiated the tender proceedings.

¶85

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the term “dealing” referred in Clause 11(e) of Ext.P2 must be taken as current dealing. The petitioner had stopped dealing in rice eight months before the tender. This court is unable to accept the said

¶86

¶87

¶88

argument. The petitioner was doing trade in a number of edible items. He has GST registration. The petitioner has conceded before the authorities that he has dealing in rice also eight months ago. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the ouster of the petitioner based on Clause 11 (e) is illegal or arbitrary.

¶89

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Sam Joseph who made a complaint against the petitioner was an employee of the relative of the 8^th respondent. The 8^th respondent being a competitor, the complaint was made malafide and therefore the petitioner ought not have been excluded based on an enquiry emanating from such complaint. Evenif it is true that the complaint was made with vested interest, the petitioner has admitted that he had dealings in rice, which factor would disqualify the petitioner from bidding. The further allegation of the petitioner is that the 8^th respondent did not upload requisite affidavits along with his tender and therefore the 8^th

¶90

¶91

¶92

respondent also ought to have been disqualified. The 8^th respondent would submit that while uploading affidavits in respect of bids relating to various Taluks, some pages of the affidavits happened to be duplicated. However on noticing this, the petitioner had informed the Tendering Authority about the mistake and produced the original affidavits.

¶93

It is further alleged that the 8^th respondent had resiled from certain bids and therefore following Clauses 11(6), 17 and 18, the 8^th respondent ought to have been disqualified for grant of any contract. The counsel for the 8^th respondent however would deny the allegation and submit that though the petitioner has expressed his willingness to grant contract in respect of certain areas to any other person, the petitioner has not resiled from entering into contract. Therefore this court does not find merit in the said contention of the petitioner.

¶94

However, it is to be noted that on the basis of the recommendations of the Vigilance Officer, not only the

¶95

¶96

¶97

petitioner was ousted from bidding, but also by Ext.P12(a), the respondents have directed to terminate all existing contracts of the petitioner. While rejection of bid may not require a prior notice, respondents 2 to 7 cannot terminate an existing contract without notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶98

The learned counsel for respondent 8 and 9 would submit that the existing contract of the petitioner is only a temporary contract liable to be terminated when the Supplyco appoints new contractors. Furthermore, the petitioner has admitted his disqualification. Therefore grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would only be an empty formality and the principles of natural justice cannot be extended to such an extent. This court is not inclined to accept the said argument of the counsel for the respondents 8 and 9. The petitioner has a case that his supply of rice was only on a few occasions, that too to Supplyco only and was at the instance of Supplyco itself. If the said contention

¶99

¶100

¶101

of the petitioner is correct, then even though he will be disqualified for participating in Ext. P2 tender due to Clause 11(e) therein, in the matter of termination of existing contracts that will be an element to be considered.

¶102

For the facts and reasons stated above the challenge made by the petitioner against proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 has to fail. The writ petition is however allowed to the limited extent of setting aside Ext. P12(a). Respondents 2 to 7 however will be at liberty to terminate the existing contract of the petitioner with notice to him or as and when new contractors are appointed in the area.

¶103

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶109

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREE 17/05/2017 EXECUTED INTO PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESP THE YEAR 2017-18 DT.12.5.17.	MENT BY ONDENT	DTD THE FOR
EXHIBIT P1(a)	photocopy of the agreem 10.12.2018 executed into petitioner with the 2nd resp the year 2018-19	ent by ondent	dtd. the for
EXHIBIT P1(b)	photocopy of the agreement 2019 executed by the petit	dtd.0 ioner	1-01- with
	the 2nd respondent for the 20.	year	2019-
EXHIBIT P1(c)	photocopy of the dtd.18.05.2020 executed	agre by	ement the
	petitioner with the 2nd resp the year 2019-20.	ondent	for
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER NOTI 17016/20 DATED 15.07.2020.	CE NFS	A 5-
EXHIBIT P2(a)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRIGE 5/17016/20 DATED 30.7.2020	NDUM	NFSA
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTO COPY OF THE RECEIPT IN THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE FOR UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK.	RESPEC PETIT	T OF IONER
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM TENDER STANDS OF TEN UDUMPANCHOLA.	GENE DERS	RATED FOR
EXHIBIT P4(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM TENDER STATUS OF TENDERS FOR	GENE IDUKKI	RAGED .
EXHIBIT P4(b)	PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM	GENE	RATED
	TENDER STATUS OF TENDERS DEVIKULAM TALUK.	FOR	AND

¶110

¶111

¶112

EXHIBIT P5	PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTA	TION
	SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS DATED 8.10.2020.	THE
EXHIBIT P6	PHOTO COPY OF THE TECHNICAL BID AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	AND 8TH
EXHIBIT P6(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMI BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.	TTED
EXHIBIT P6(b)	PHOTO COPY OF THE BIDS OF RESPOND WITH RATES QUOTED	ENTS
EXHIBIT P6(c)	PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION FILED U THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMI BY THE PETITIONER	NDER TTED
EXHIBIT P6(d)	PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT WP(C0NO.35249/2018	IN
EXHIBIT P7	PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY RE DATED 10.10.2020.	PORT
EXHIBIT P7(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY RE DATED 10.10.2020.	PORT
EXHIBIT P8	PHOTO COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED	BY
	THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.	1ST
EXHIBIT P8(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE INTERNAL NOTE TO MANAGER NFSA DATED 7.10.2020.	THE
EXHIBIT P9	PHOTO COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT F BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER D 23.10.2020	ILED ATED
EXHIBIT P10	PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN NO.22013/2020 DATED 27.10.2020.	WPC
EXHIBIT P11	PHOTO GRAPH OF THE COVER OF THE P RICE.	ONNI
EXHIBIT P11(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE	MENT THE

¶113

¶114

¶115

EXHIBIT P12	2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2020. PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER 10.11.2020.	DATED
EXHIBIT P12(a)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY OF AN ENDORS BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER 20.11.2020.	EMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P13	PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIDS OF RESPON WITH RATES QUOTED.	DENTS
EXHIBIT P13(a)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REIGHT TO INFORM APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.	ATION THE
EXHIBIT P14	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT WPC.NO.35249/2018.	IN
EXHIBIT P15	PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLIC DTD.09.10.2020 SUBMITTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.	ATION THE
EXHIBIT P15(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD 10-2020 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGH INFORMATION ACT.	. 13- T TO
EXHIBIT P16	PHOTOCOPY OF THE GENERAL SALE (GST) REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER	TAX THE
EXHIBIT P16(a)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PARTIC OF THE GST REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER DOWNLOADED FROM THE WE OF THE GST.	ULARS THE BSITE
EXHIBIT P17	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19-01 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT MANAGER	-2021 NFSA
EXHIBIT P17(a)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF TRANSPO CONTRACTORS ANNEXED TO EXT.P17.	RTING

¶116

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶117

ANNEXURE R2(a) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY SAM JOSEPH TO

¶118

¶119

¶120

THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R2(b) THE PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE R2(c) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 20.11.2020 INTIMATION. EXHIBIT R8 A TRUE COY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/8/2020 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH HI TENDER FOR THE CONTRACT SUBMITTED FOR UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK EXHIBIT R8 B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/8/2020 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH HIS TENDER FOTHT COTNRACT SUBMITTED FOR IDUKKI TALUK EXHIBIT R8 C TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT OF THE TENDER FINALISED AS ON 7/10/2020 AS PUBLISHED IN THE WBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R8 D TRUE COPY OF THE THE APPROVED TRANSPORTATION RATES ISSED BYTHE 6T RESPONDENT FOR UDUMPAHNCHOLA TALUK EXHIBIT R8 E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/12/2020 OF THE PETITONER ADDRESSED OT THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R9 A TRUE COPY OF TH EORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 31/8/207 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANC MANAGER, SUPPLYCO TALUK DEPOT, NEDIMKANDAM EXHIBIT R9 B TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5/1/2019 DRAWN UP BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE 9TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R9 D TRUE COPY OF THE COMUNICATION DATED 27/11/2020 INTIMATING OF THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THE RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR EXHIBIT R9 E TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GURARANTEE BOND

¶121

¶122

¶123

ISSUED BYTHE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA ON BEHALF OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶124

EXHIBIT 10(a) TRUE COPY OF THEREPORT OF THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, TOGETHER WITH THE STATEMENT FIVEN BY THE PETITIONER, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

P.I. Liyakath Ali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.I. Liyakath Ali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.M.Hassankutty Vs the State of Kerala

Rinrose Traders Vs State of Kerala

D.Gopinath Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala Government Electrical Contractors Association, Vs State of Kerala

Madhu M.T Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian.P.J. and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others