Allowed

Suresh G v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC6 Feb 2024WP(C)/1822/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging tender rejection notices, the Court held that fact-intensive evaluation of credentials should be deferred to the authority. It directed the Superintending Engineer to consider the petitioners' explanation and company representative before taking a final decision, pending the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; direction to 2nd respondent to consider petitioners' explanation and finalize the decision within two weeks; further tender actions deferred.

Suresh G Vs Kerala Water Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 1822 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 SURESH G

¶7

AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.LATE P.GOPINATHAN, SUNITHA BHAVAN AVANAVANCHERRY
VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK AVANAVANCHERRY POST - ,
ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103

¶8

2 SIVAPRASAD S AGED 57 YEARS S/O.LATE SOMAN PARAMESWARAN KRISHNAMOORTHIVILA VEEDU THATTAMALA POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691020

¶9

BY ADVS.
GEEN T.MATHEW
S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
JALABHAVAN VELLAYAMBALAM, PMG JN POST - 695 033
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALABHAVAN
VELLAYAMBALAM, PMG JN POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033

¶12

2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OBSERVATORY HILLS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033

¶13

SRI. GEORGIE JOHNY, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1822 OF 2024 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Sri.Ramesh Babu, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Geen T.Mathew – appearing for the petitioners, submitted that his clients have been constrained to approach this Court impugning Exts.P3 and P5 because, it virtually disqualifies the 1^st petitioner from continuing further with the tendering processes notified by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), solely on the ground that the financial credentials submitted by the 1^st petitioner, while bidding in favour of a Private Limited Company - wherein he is a partner, is irregular and improper. The learned senior counsel submitted that, when the 1^st petitioner is admittedly a partner of the company, his experience and credentials can be used by them, which has been done along with their bid application; and therefore, that Exts.P3 and P5 are untenable and beyond law. He thus prayed that Exts.P3 and P5 be quashed.

¶18

Sri.Georgie Johny – learned standing counsel for the KWA, however, submitted that Exts.P3 and P5 are only a notice asking the petitioners to show cause why the bid of the company be not rejected because they rely on the experience and credentials of the 1^st petitioner, which could not have been used by the former. He submitted that if the petitioners are able to explain the notice cogently based on Ext.P4 explanation - which they have already submitted, the

¶19

WP(C) NO. 1822 OF 2024 3

¶20

Superintending Engineer is willing to hear them and take a final decision thereon without any avoidable delay.

¶21

Sri.Ramesh Babu – learned senior counsel, in reply, submitted that, if the Superintending Engineer is willing to consider Ext.P4 dispassionately, his clients would not stand in the way of this writ petition being ordered on such terms; however, praying that until such time, the tender processes be not allowed to be finalised.

¶22

No doubt, if the petitioners are able to explain cogently to Exts.P3 and P5, 'KWA' must consider if the bid of the company in question requires to be rejected. Obviously, this is a matter for the Superintending Engineer to consider appropriately and it would not be prudent for this Court to enter into the controversy at this stage, since it would certainly involve assessment of facts and documents, which is proscribed while this Court acts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the 2^nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 explanation of the petitioners and enter into a final decision thereon, after hearing them, as also the authorised representative of the company in question; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶24

WP(C) NO. 1822 OF 2024 4

¶25

copy of this judgment.

¶26

Needless to say, until such time as the afore is done and the resultant order communicated to the petitioners and to the company in question, all further action pursuant to the bid notification shall stand deferred, and will be taken forward only depending upon the decision to be so entered into.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶29

MC/8.2

¶30

WP(C) NO. 1822 OF 2024 5

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1822/2024

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER NO.
142/2023- 24/KWA/PHC/DI/TVM VOLUME 1 DATED
21.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER
NO.142/2023-24/KWA/PHC/DI/TVM VOLUME 2
SCOPE OF WORK DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2 ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH
THE BID SUBMISION CONFIRMATION
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 04.01.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1 ST
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.01.2024
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2 ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06.01.2024
ISSUED FROM EMAIL ID [email protected] TO
THE 1 ST PETITIONER

Suresh G v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh G 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

Fr. Joseph Koluthuvelil Vs Meera. K. IAS

Suresh G Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sarala Vs Union of India Represented by General Manager

Geeth C.B Vs Rajasree Menon

Sandhya K.S Vs v. Chelsa Sini

The Merchants Association Cherthala Vs State of Kerala