In a writ petitions challenging the illegal rejection of a tender submitted nine years ago, the single judge held that nothing survives to be adjudicated at such a belated stage and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous after nine years.
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 MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 466 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
K.P. JOY AGED 53 YEARS CONTRACTOR,KOORANKALLOOKKARAN HOUSE,PEECHANIKKADU,PULIYANAM.P.O,ANGAMALY. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU MANJINIKARA
RESPONDENTS:
SRI.JOBY JOSEPH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.466 of 2013
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking
the following reliefs:
i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P7;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to accept the pre qualification bid as well as price bid submitted by the petitioner and to open the price bid submitted by the petitioner and to award the work based upon the competitive rate;
iii. issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that petitioner is duly qualified in terms of experience contemplated in Ext.P3 notification and hence the rejection of his tender as per Ext.P7 was illegal and arbitrary;
iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to provide weightage to the quantum of similar work executed within last 5 years and not for the rate involved in the said work, as a relevant criteria for determining the experience criteria of the contractor and declare that the weightage given to the rate rather than the quantity of work in Ext.P3 tender notification
W.P.(C) No.466 of 2013
3
is void ab-initio and hence unsustainable;
v. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 representation, forthwith
vi. issue any such other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The subject issue relates to the illegal rejection of the tender submitted by the petitioner in respect of a contract invited in the year 2013. The matter was pending before this Court without securing any interim orders. Now nine years have elapsed and I do not think anything survives to be adjudicated in this writ petition at this belated stage. The writ petition has become infructous, dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
AP
W.P.(C) No.466 of 2013
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 466/2013
| PETITION | ER EXHI | BITS |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF SOME OF THE WORKS EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT | P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF RECONSTRUCTION OF PULATHERA BRIDGE AT KM 2/00 OF KIZHUTHANI-KARALAM ROAD IN TRICHUR DISTRICT, WORTH RS.4,81,93,39/-. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 | TRUE COPIES OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER DATED 26.11.2012 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 | TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FACING SHEET OF TENDER NO,PQ10/SECCA/2012- 13. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SCHEDULE OF WORK INVOLVED IN EXT.P3 NOTIFICATION. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 | TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SCHEDULE F WORK INVOLVED IN TENDER NO.PQ 67/SECCA/2009-10. |
| EXHIBIT | P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 02.01.2013 OF THE 3RD RE. |
| EXHIBIT | P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.01.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be adjudicated upon after nine years of pendency.
K.P. JOY
STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BRIDGES)
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BRIDGES)
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
