IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
PHILIP THOMAS,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. LATE P.M. THOMAS, PUTHENKAYYALAYIL HOUSE,
KOTTANADU P.O, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN 689 678.
BY ADVS.
JOSEPH GEORGE
P.A.REJIMON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD- BUILDING DIVISION, OFFICE OF PWD BUILDINGS
DIVISIONS , PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PIN 689 645
3 CHIEF ENGINEER (BUILDINGS),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O, PIN 689 645.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP P.S.APPU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022 The second respondent had invited competitive tenders for construction of a new building for the Government Model L.P.School, Thadiyoor in Pathanamthitta. Only four contractors, including the petitoner, responded to the notification. From out of the four bids, one was rejected for failure of the bidder to upload the affidavit. Among the balance three bidders, the petitioner quoted the lowest rate. On finding petitioner to be the lowest qualified bidder, the second respondent issued Ext.P4 letter, inviting the petitioner for negotiation, pointing out that the disqualified bidder had quoted an even lower rate.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause 2009.3 of the PWD Manual to contend that there cannot be any insistance for negotiation, when there is more than one qualified bidder. Pointing out these WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022 3 aspects, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent. This writ petition is filed, since the second respondent initiated proceedings for re-tender of the work.
3. Learned Government Pleader relied on Clause 2009.4 of the PWD Manual, providing for rejection of tender, and conduct of re-tender or fresh tender if the PAC exceeds the lower market rate justification estimate.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I deem it appropriate for the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner and to take a decision on merits, rather than deciding the dispute in a proceeding under Article 226.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation and to take a reasoned decision thereon, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022 4 The decision as directed above shall be taken within two weeks. The petitioner shall appear before the second respondent on 07.07.2022 and produce a copy of the writ petition along with certified copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18024 of 2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONTRACT DATA OF TENDER NO. TR/BL/2019.8689 23.2.1/2. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BID OPENING SUMMARY. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BID RANKING LIST PUBLISHED BY PWD.
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO. D-5 8689/2019 DATED 09.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER .
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE INVITING TENDER NO. PWD/BLDG/3762/2022-2023 DATED 31.05.2022.