Allowed

Deepa N v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2024WP(C)/39560/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged grant of Authorised Retail Depot licence to another bidder. Court set aside order cancelling tender and directing fresh notification without considering petitioner's eligibility. Directed authority to reconsider petitioner's claim with hearing opportunity within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 set aside to extent it calls for fresh notification without considering petitioner claim. Authority directed to reconsider with hearing within two months. Ext.P4 also set aside.

Deepa N v Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 39560 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DEEPA N V AGED 43 YEARS, PARAPURATH HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545 BY ADVS. N.V.VINAY SUNIL.M.KARANY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES(B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLIES OFFICER, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

¶12

4 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101 BY ADVS. SRI.S.RENJITH – SPL.GP. SRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).No. 39560 of 2023

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner applied for being granted the licence for running an Authorised Retail Depot (ARD), bearing No.27, of the Kunnathunadu Taluk, but was not granted the same; and it was issued in favour of a certain Sri.Thankaraj. She challenged the grant so offered, primarily on two grounds, namely: that Sri.Thankaraj had made his application after the cut-off time in the tender notification; and further that he had offered only a building of less than 300 sq.ft. However, when this was not acceded to, she approached this Court and obtained orders in W.P.(C).No. 2201/2023, consequent to which, her statutory Revision was directed to be considered by the competent Authority.

¶18

The petitioner says that, instead of considering her application properly, Ext.P3 order has now been issued, wherein, after recording that Sri.Thankaraj has withdrawn from the bid, a decision is recorded to have been taken to cancel the earlier notification and issue a fresh one, merely because there are three other qualified persons left, including the petitioner. She asserts that, Ext.P3, to such extent, is illegal and unlawful and, therefore, prays that the Government be directed to reconsider her Revision from the angle whether she should be allotted the ARD, rather than automatically conclude that a re-tender is necessary.

¶19

W.P.(C).No. 39560 of 2023

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

Sri.S.Renjith – learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, conceded that Ext.P3 deals with two issues, namely, whether the grant of licence to Sri.Thankaraj should be maintained; and, secondly, whether the petitioner should be substituted in his place. He also admitted that Sri.Thankaraj has withdrawn from the tender process and, therefore, that the petitioner, along with two others, have been left in the zone of consideration. He argued that, however, as has been recorded in Ext.P3, since the evaluation of the merits of the remaining three cannot be done now, it was felt better to have a renotification, which has been ordered through Ext.P4. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶22

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader because, when the petitioner challenges the grant of licence to Sri.Thankaraj and claims that she should be substituted in his place, it was obviously for the Government to have considered both these aspects, because they were enjoined to do so, under the orders of this Court.

¶23

When one reads Ext.P3, it is clear that the Government records that Sri.Thankaraj has withdrawn from the bid; but then did not answer the claim of the petitioner for being substituted in

¶24

W.P.(C).No. 39560 of 2023

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

his place, merely saying there are two other persons also equally qualified as her.

¶27

I must say that, one cannot understand what is meant by this opinion in Ext.P3 because, if there were three other persons eligible – including the petitioner, then obviously, their competence and credentials ought to have been considered, rather than have immediately and automatically gone for a re-tender.

¶28

Presumably sensing the mind of this Court as afore, Sri.S.Renjith – learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that if this Court is not inclined to accept Ext.P3 to the extent afore, then the competent Authority of the 1^st respondent is willing to hear all the three, who are now remaining in the fray, including the petitioner; and take a final decision, whether any of them should be given the licence, or if the processes pursuant to Ext.P4 should be taken forward.

¶29

No doubt, the afore suggestion of the learned Special Government Pleader is the best available even to the petitioner in the given circumstances.

¶30

For the afore, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P3 to the extent to which it calls for a fresh notification without considering the claim of the petitioner for being allotted the ARD; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the 1^st

¶31

W.P.(C).No. 39560 of 2023

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

respondent to re-consider this aspect, after affording her and any other person, an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action on this issue, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Consequently, Ext.P4 will also stand set aside, however, clarifying that, if, through the afore exercise, it is to be found that a fresh notification is required to be issued, the respondents will be at liberty to do so; however, after ensuring that the order resultant to the afore directions is communicated to the petitioner and the other parties.

¶35

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶36

anm

¶37

W.P.(C).No. 39560 of 2023

¶38

: 6 :

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39560/2023

¶40

PETITIONER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit P1	THE TRUE 2201/2023	COPY OF FILED BEFORE	THE W.P.(C) NO. THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE	COPY OF T	HE JUDGEMENT DATED
	24/02/2023 THIS HON'B	IN W.P.(C) LE COURT	NO. 2201 OF 2023 OF
Exhibit P3	THE TRUE AND CS D RESPONDENT	COPY OF THE ATED 19.06.2	ORDER NO.256/2023/F 023 ISSUED BY 1ST
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE NO.DSOEKM/	COPY OF 758/2023-CS2	THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.10.2023

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

Deepa N v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa N v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M. Noushad Hussain Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Bijoykumar Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

L.Devadas, Vs the District Collector

Shibina S. F. Vs State of Kerala

Dhanavarna India Nidhi Limited, Vs Union of India

Mookkuthala Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India