This court disposed of a writ appeal challenging a High Court order dismissing a petition regarding a flawed tender process. After counsel agreed to withdraw a representation, the record was sent back to finalize the tender without this appeal being adjudicated on merits.
None granted; record to be returned to finalised tender procedure.
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.
W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943 WA NO. 10 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23189/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
MUJEEB REHMAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O LATE MUHAMMED BASHEER, PROPRIETOR, B M TRADERS, K P 2/797, THAIVILAKAM, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020. BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN THAYYIB SHA P.S. PAUL BABY
RESPONDENT/S:
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -2-
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the following
reliefs:-
“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to award the tender strictly in terms of Exhibit P2 e-tender document and thereby reject the bid submitted by the 3rd respondent;
(ii) declare that the petitioner is the valid bidder considering the fact that the petitioner alone has submitted Exhibit P3 price schedule in the tender strictly following the stipulations in Exhibit P2;
(iii) declare that Exhibit P4 submitted by the 3rd respondent is in patent violation of the tender conditions and therefore the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent cannot be accepted;
(iv) call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same to the extent the same declares the 3rd respondent's tender as 'accepted technical' and 'qualified' by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;
(v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to
W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -3-
consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 representation submitted by the petitioner, within a timeframe fixed by this Hon'ble Court after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner through an authorized representative.”
that there is no merit, dismissed the writ petition.
hereunder:-
Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The grievance highlighted in the writ petition is that the ineligible one Mr. Shahul Hameed, the 3rd respondent, is attempted to be inducted through the back door for the award of a contract by the Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited, the 2nd respondent.
Appellant submitted that in Exhibit P4 price schedule submitted by the 3rd respondent, the amount entered in the column for 'basic rate', 'total amount without taxes' and 'total amount with taxes' is the same, and as such, the bid was liable to be rejected. However, after the opening of the bid, the 2nd respondent has permitted the 3rd respondent
W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -4-
to add GST amount over and above the amount shown in the column
'amount with taxes'.
Appellant further submitted that the arbitrariness and partisanship, the very evil which was sought to be eliminated through the online tender process, has crept into the instant bidding process, as is evident from the acts of the 2nd respondent. Writ court has dismissed the writ petition.
W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -5-
appellant, submitted that he would withdraw Ext. P6 representation dated 18.10.2021 forthwith, and further submitted that the said representation can even be treated as withdrawn, so as to facilitate finalization of the tender.
In the light of the above, instant writ appeal is disposed of, accordingly.
Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE
Mujeeb Rehman
State of Kerala
Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited
Shahul Hameed
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
