Writ appeal dismissed challenging the High Court judgment that upheld the Managing Director's absolute discretion to reject tenders without assigning reasons. The High Court refused to interfere with the decision to re-auction plantations.
The writ appeal was dismissed; no interference with the managing director's decision to reject the tender.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
WA NO. 1737 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22824/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15.12.2021
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
V. CHANDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, PROPRIETOR, CHITRA ENTERPRISES, PANGODE P.O., VIA KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 006
BY ADV K.B.GANGESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
ADV.SRI. SANGEETH C.U, GP FOR R1, SMT. KABANI DINESH, SC FOR R2 AND R3, SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE AND SRI. CHACKO SIMON, FOR R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1737 of 2021
: 2 :
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of January 2022
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Appellant, an 'A' class contractor under the Forest Department, has approached this court by filing this writ appeal challenging the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22824 of 2021 dated 15.12.2021 by which, a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the second respondent/Kerala Forest Development Corporation Limited has got absolute discretion for not confirming a bid without assigning any reason as per Ext.P7.
W.A.No.1737 of 2021
: 3 :
aforesaid plantation on 7.10.2021 by cancelling the tender/auction held on 4.10.2021 is violative of the terms contained in Ext.P7 and therefore illegal.
December 2021, writ court dismissed the writ petition, relevant portion of which reads thus:
“3. The short point to be decided is whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender submitted on 4.10.2021 is correct or not. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner participated in the tender proceedings based on Ext.P1 tender notification and he 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
W.A.No.1737 of 2021
: 4 :
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.”
Therefore, I think there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.”
W.A.No.1737 of 2021
: 5 :
respondent/the Managing Director, Kerala Forest Development Corporation Limited that the appellant's bid was cancelled as he was ineligible to participate in the bid.
“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 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.”
W.A.No.1737 of 2021
: 6 :
In such a view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. Writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.
SD/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
jes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the successful bid by the Managing Director without assigning reasons under Clause 1.23 constitutes a ground for judicial interference.
Whether the Kerala Judicial Review Court's dismissal of the writ petition regarding the absolute discretion of the Managing Director to reject tenders is maintainable.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the decision to re-auction plantations and confirm a new bidder without assigning reasons.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V. CHANDRAN
STATE OF KERALA
KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
MIDLAND TIMBERS
S. MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
