Disposed

K.O.George, v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC17 Jan 2022WP(C)/912/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, empanelled contractors, contended the tender submission deadline was insufficient. The Court observed the deadline passed without their submission despite interim relief. Noting re-tendering of most items, the Court dismissed the petition for received items and allowed participation in re-tenders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; petitioners allowed to participate in re-tender for unquoted items.

K.O.George, Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 912 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.O.GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, PROPRIETOR M/S. G.K ENTERPRISES, SREEMOLANAGARAM, P.O. ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SIVADASAN.T.N., PROPRIETOR M/S. LAKSHMI ELECTRICALS, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 VU MOHAMEDALI, PROPRIETOR VEZHAPPILLY ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES, EAST VELIYATHUNADU, UC COLLEGE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 102.

¶10

4 AL BABY, PROPRIETOR M/S IDEAL ELECTRICALS & ALLIED ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES, TOWN HALL ROAD, ALUVA

¶11

5 K.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KAMALA ELECTRICALS, PONNURUNNI, VYTILA-682 019.

¶12

6 P.C. JOSE, PROPRIETOR JOS ELECTRICALS, PULIYANAM, ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

7 V.T.JOSE, PROPRIETOR M/S THOMS ELECTRICALS, KALADI-MALAYATOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN HARIHARAN SMITHA PRAVEEN SHANIBA TT VIPINDAS MV SISIRA M SHIRINE

¶14

WP(C).No.912/2022

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION (IRRIGATION), SUB DIVISION, ALUVA-683 101

¶18

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.357(A) & 358 MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

3 EDWARD PJ, M/S PEEJEES, ELECTRICALS, PANAKKAL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 027.

¶20

4 AR SIVASHANKARAN, ARRACKAL HOUSE, VAZHAPETTI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691

¶21

SRI.APPU P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.912/2022

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2022

¶27

The petitioners are contractors, who are empanelled with the Irrigation Sub Division, Aluva for the last several years. Exts.P1 and P2 tender notifications were called by the respondents for 35 items of work. Exts.P1 and P2 are the tender notifications published on 03.01.2022 and 06.01.2022. The respondents gave time up to 12.01.2022 and 13.01.2022 respectively for submission of the tenders.

¶28

The petitioners approached this Court stating that the time granted for submission of tenders is insufficient and the respondents are bound to give more time for submitting the tenders.

¶29

When this writ petition came up for admission on 11.01.2022, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that if

¶30

the petitioners submit tenders in response to Exts.P1 and P2 by

¶31

WP(C).No.912/2022

¶32

¶33

hand, to the 1^st respondent, the said tenders of the petitioners will also be accepted and processed, provided the tenders are handed over before the stipulate time.

¶34

In order to ascertain the number of bidders participated in response to Exts.P1 and P2, this Court passed an order on 13.01.2022, granting liberty to the respondents to open the tenders and not to finalise the selection.

¶35

When this writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that out of the 35 items works tendered as per Exts.P1 and P2, only 12 quotations were received in respect of 6 items of work. No quotations have been received in respect of other works. Therefore, the respondents propose to re-tender 29 items of work.

¶36

In view of the decision now taken by the respondents to re-tender 29 items of works, the grievance of the petitioners is substantially redressed. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the six items of works for which 12 tenders have been received may also be directed to be

¶37

WP(C).No.912/2022

¶38

¶39

re-tendered.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

The last date for submission of tenders in respect of these works, was 12.01.2022. This Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioners to personally handover their quotations before respondents within the stipulated time. Inspite of the interim order, the petitioners could not submit their tenders.

¶42

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no interference need to be made in respect of the 6 items of works for which 12 tenders have been received.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of recording the statement of the Government Pleader that 29 works in respect of which no tenders have been received, will be re-tendered. The petitioners will be at liberty to participate in the re-tender, in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶45

¶46

WP(C).No.912/2022

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 912/2022

¶49

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY NO.9/TENDER	OF THE NOTE INVITING TENDER -ELE/21-22 DATED 03.01.2022
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY NO.10/TENDE	OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER R-ELE/21-22 DATED 06.01.2022
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY GRANTING O PETITIONER	PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.01.2021 THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING F AMC CONTRACT TO THE 1ST
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY	OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
	28.12.2020	ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
	EVIDENCING PETITIONER	GRANT OF AMC TO THE 5TH
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY	OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE
	WEBSITE AS HTTPS://WWW	ON 10.01.2022 IN THE URL .IRRIGATION.KERALA.GOVN.IN/

K.O.George, v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.O.George, v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Shiyas Vs the State of Kerala

Kilma I.K., Vs Dr.v.P.Joy

Thomson Lawrence Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)

Aji Kochuparambil Vs Sanjay Kaul

Sofiya.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Sreedevi.K Vs Calicut University