Dismissed

Mahin K v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC21 Sept 2023WP(C)/3396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging a pre-qualification order allowing a Joint Venture. The court held no prejudice existed regarding the solvency certificate as it came from a Scheduled Bank, and deferred to the Committee's finding that all documents were in proper format.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the pre-qualification order of the Joint Venture was dismissed.

Mahin K Vs Kerala Water Authority — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3396 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAHIN K., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. AMU, CONTRACTOR, JASEELA MANZIL, STAR NAGAR, BEVINJE, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541

¶8

BY ADVS. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA MOHAMMED SHAFI.K K.S.ARCHANA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, NANDAVANAM, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033

¶11

2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. CIRCLE, MALAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673009

¶12

3 K. RAMESHAN, CONTRACTOR, KEDHARAM, K.S.H.B. COLONY, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673009

¶13

4 KANNAN K., S/O KARUNAN, CONTRACTOR, AMRUTHAM, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR-670 011., PIN - 670011

¶14

BY ADVS. GEORGIE JOHNY MUSTHAHAZIN MOHAMMED K ANIL K S GOPIDAS E.N.(K/000386/2017) R.SUDHIR(S-673)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 3396 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner impugns Ext.P10 order issued by the second respondent – Superintending Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), asserting that the pre-qualification of the Joint Venture between respondents 3 and 4 is illegal because the Solvency Certificate produced by them is not from a Nationalised Bank.

¶20

Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, going by the conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), every contractor is to produce a Solvency Certificate from a Nationalised Bank, but that the one produced by respondents 3 and 4 is from the Kerala Gramin Bank – which is a Regional Rural Bank. He thus prayed that Ext.P10, to the extent to which it allows the Joint Venture of respondents 3 and 4 to participate in the tender, be set aside.

¶21

In response, however, Sri.Georgie Johny – learned standing counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, submitted that the Kerala Gramin Bank is, in fact, a Scheduled Bank; and therefore, that the Solvency Certificate issued by it is certainly one deserving of being accepted by his client. He submitted that this is not in violation of any other terms of the 'NIT',

¶22

WP(C) NO. 3396 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

particularly when the certificate has not been issued by a private bank or such other entity. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶25

Sri.R.Sudhir - learned counsel for the third respondent, submitted that the afore assertions of the rival parties are not correct because his client has, in fact, produced Ext.R3(c) on record, which is the solvency certificate issued by the Federal Bank, which is one of the leading banks in Kerala and also a scheduled bank. He, therefore, prayed that the contentions of the petitioner be repelled and Ext.P10 be upheld.

¶26

I have considered the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials produced on record.

¶27

As is evident from the narrative afore, the petitioner's specific contention is that the Joint Venture of respondents 3 and 4 is not qualified to participate in the bid. He explains this, saying that the Solvency Certificate issued by them is not from a Nationalised Bank.

¶28

However, Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha – learned counsel for the petitioner, was unable to show me, even in spite of several opportunities, that the NIT prescribes inflexibly that the Solvency Certificate to be produced shall only be from a

¶29

WP(C) NO. 3396 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

Nationalised Bank and not Scheduled Banks.

¶32

That apart, the certificate now produced by the third respondent is either from the Kerala Gramin Bank or the Federal Bank, depending upon which is to be acted upon by the Kerala Water Authority. In any event, both are Scheduled Banks.

¶33

I, therefore, see no prejudice to the petitioner because, it is for the Kerala Water Authority to decide what kind of solvency is required from contractors to participate in the bid and to that extent, I cannot find fault with Ext.P10.

¶34

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha submitted that his client has an adscititious plea that, even if the solvency certificate of the party respondents can be accepted, the Water Authority was bound to reject their bid because the said certificate is not in the format stipulated.

¶35

However, Sri.Georgie Johny – learned standing counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, submitted that this is not true and that the Committee - entrusted with verifying the pre-qualification credentials of the contractors – has found all the documents of the party respondents to be in its proper

¶36

WP(C) NO. 3396 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

format and with acceptable attributes.

¶39

That being recorded, as I have already said above, one fails to understand how the petitioner can impel any cause in this matter, when the competent Authority, namely the designated Committee, has already found that all the applications are in order. When experts in the field take considered decisions, it is now well settled that the competence of this Court to enter into its merits is barricaded to a large extent.

¶40

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

stu

¶43

WP(C) NO. 3396 OF 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3396/2023

¶46

PETITIO	NER EX	HIBITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NOTICE DATED 28.12.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED TENDER NOTICE, PUBLISHED ALONG WITH EXT.P2.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER CONDITIONS: PART-I PUBLISHED ALONG WITH EXT.P2.
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER CONDITIONS: PART -II, PUBLISHED ALONG WITH EXT.P2.
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT Q1 TO Q8 PUBLISHED ALONG WITH THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER.
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.9.2022 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KWA, PH CIRCLE, KANNUR.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE DATED 18.6.2022 OF KERALA GRAMIN BANK, PRODUCED BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS.
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.1.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2022 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE, PALAKKD.

¶47

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit R 4	letter dated 06	.02.2015	of the RBI, with
(a)	respect to the II Schedule	inclusion	of Banks under the

¶49

WP(C) NO. 3396 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the corrigendum dated 18.01.2023. Exhibit R3(b) True copy of the bid acknowledgment dated 20.01.2023. Exhibit R3(c) True copy of the certificate dated 19.01.2023.

Mahin K v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahin K v. Kerala Water Authority

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

Umesan P Vs the Secretary

Joshy C.C Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Heba K.R Vs Manu Michael

1. Lekshmy Sreedhar Vs Vasantha

M/S Kent Constructions (Pvt.Ltd) Vs the Executive Engineer

Vincent. P Vs Mohan K.G , (Age and Father’S Name Not Known to the Petitioner)