Kerala High Court
Cherian Varkey Construction Company ... vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WA NO. 44 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.3760 OF 2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD.
ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, VTH FLOOR, ALFA PLAZA,
K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, REJI M.CHERIAN.
2 REJI M.CHERIAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.CHERIAN VARKEY, SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTOR, CHERIAN
VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD., ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS, VTH FLOOR, ALFA PLAZA, K.P.VALLON ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020.
3 SAJI V.CHERIAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.CHERIAN VARKEY, SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTOR, CHERIAN
VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD., ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS, VTH FLOOR, ALFA PLAZA, K.P.VALLON ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:2:-
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE
SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE
SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY -
FINANCE, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
4 KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD
PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, SREEBALA BUILDINGS, TC
11/339, 5TH FLOOR, KESTON ROAD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROJECT MANAGER.
5 KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD
2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MG ROAD, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
6 URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD.NO.10957
MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 686
546. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
7 P.G.MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 59, S/O.GOVINDAN, ARYA SADANAM, PERUMPALAM P.O. -
685 570
8 K.THAVAMONY
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, CHALIL HOUSE,
PERUMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 685 570.
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:3:-
ALLD.R9 ELETHINKARA LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
NO. 1020, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SABY. P.V ,
ELETHINKARA (ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON IA
1/2023 DTD.11/4/2024)
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI K.V.MANOJ, SR.GP
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.ATHUL SHAJI
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SHRI S.SHYAM KUMAR
RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
SHRI.ANWIN JOHN ANTONY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/1/2024,
ALONG WITH WA.47/2021, 16921/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WA NO. 47 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.3189 OF 2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD.
ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, VTH FLOOR, ALFA PLAZA, K.
P. VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, REJI M. CHERIAN.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE
SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE
SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL
SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:5:-
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD
PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, SREEBALA BUILDINGS, TC
11/339, 5TH FLOOR, KESTON ROAD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR
P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003., REPRESENTED BY
ITS PROJECT MANAGER.
3 URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
NO.10957, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE
- 686546, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
4 P. G. MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN, ARYA BHAVAN, PERUMPALAM P. O., PIN -
685 570.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI K.V.MANOJ, SR.GP
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.ATHUL SHAJI
SHRI.ANWIN JOHN ANTONY
SHRI S.SHYAM KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/1/2024,
ALONG WITH WA.44/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
11/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:6:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16921 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 AF INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
2ND FLOOR, ROYAL PLAZA, BRIDGE ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA - 683101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHRI. ABDUL FAIZY, PIN - 683101
2 P.K. SULPHEEKER & COMPANY
BUILDING NO.3/447 E GF. PADMINI APARTMENT, BEHIND
NADAKKAVU POST OFFICE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE, KERALA -
673011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI. SUNAS
P.K., PIN - 673011
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
KARTHIKA MARIA
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
VEENA RAVEENDRAN
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
MANASA BENNY GEORGE
KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:7:-
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695001, PIN - 695001
2 PROJECT DIRECTOR
KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD-PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, GROUND
FLOOR, BSNL OFFICE BUILDING, CGM(O) DOORSANCHAR
BHAVAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -
695033, PIN - 695033
3 URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
PO MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA -
673102 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
673102
4 KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD
GROUND FLOOR, BSNL OFFICE BUILDING, CGM(O) DOORSANCHAR
BHAVAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -
695033 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, PIN -
695033
5 KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD
2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MG ROAD, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695001 REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI K.V.MANOJ, SR.GP
Shri M.SASINDRAN
SHRI S.SHYAM KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15/1/2024, ALONG WITH WA.44/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:8:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 23696 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
MALABAR TECH
203, 177/33, VICTORY TOWER, KACHERIPADI, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER,
ABDUL RAFEEQUE.N, AGE 50 YEARS, S/O ABDURAHIMAN
HAJIRESIDING AT NOORENGAL HOUSE MELMURI POST,
MALAPPURAM DT, PIN - 676121
BY ADVS.
O.A.NURIYA
MATHEWS RAJU
HARIS BEERAN
ANAND B. MENON
REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, BSNL BUILDING, PMG JUNCTION,
TRIVANDRUM - 695003., PIN - 695003
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:9:-
2 URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LIMITED,
MADAPPALLI COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673102,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN., PIN - 673102
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, PIN - 695001
BY
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI K.V.MANOJ, SR.GP
ADV M.SASINDRAN
SHRI S.SHYAM KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15/1/2024, ALONG WITH WA.44/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:10:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27723 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA
AGED 50 YEARS
G-1/G-20, COMMERCE CENTRE, J. DADAJEE ROAD, TARDEO,
MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SHRI.
SABU THOMAS, PIN - 400034
2 SABU THOMAS
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. C.V. THOMAS, KOTTISSERI KUDIYARI, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686691
3 MANU J NAIR
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. V.K. JANARDHANAN NAIR, VADAKKEPUTHANPURA,
VARAPETTY P.O., KOTHAMANANGALAM, ERNAKULAM., PIN -
686691
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
KARTHIKA MARIA
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:11:-
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA .,
PIN - 695001
2 DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695001
3 URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
PO MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 673102
4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695001
5 FINANCE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA ., PIN -
695001
BY
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI K.V.MANOJ, SR.GP
ADV M.SASINDRAN
SHRI S.SHYAM KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15/1/2024, ALONG WITH WA.44/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11/1/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:12:-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W.A.Nos.44/2021 and 47/2021 " C.R."
&
W.P.(C).Nos.16921/2023, 23696/2023 and 27723/2023
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These matters raise a challenge to government orders that grant preference to labour contract societies up to 10% over the quoted amount of the lowest bidder. These matters are at the instance of private contractors and are arising from writ petitions negating the challenge by the learned Single Judge. Additionally, there are fresh writ petitions contesting the government orders and consequential stipulations in the notice inviting tenders. Since the questions to be considered in all these matters are the same, it is appropriate that all these cases are disposed of by a common judgment.
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:13:-
2. The Government of Kerala, by an order dated 13/11/1997 decided to accord preference to labour societies. In that Government order, the maximum value of the work at a time that can be undertaken by 'A' class society is for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs, 'B' class society is Rs.30 lakhs and 'C' class society is Rs.10 lakhs. The labour society will have a preference for the award of the work if their tender is up to 10% of the lowest tender. It outlined eligibility conditions such as a minimum 50 labourers as actual members of society and sympathisers up to 10% of the actual membership. Subsequently, through another order dated 19/3/2004, the Government stated that labour societies are not eligible for any price preference for the contract administered by the Public Works Department (PWD). Thereafter, another order of the Government dated 2/8/2008 restored the priority benefits of the Government order dated 13/11/1997 to the Uralungal Labour Contract Co- operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ULCCS") without any restriction on financial limits. Furthermore, the PWD Department issued another order dated 19/3/2020 allowing labour contract societies subject to class of registration, to participate in tenders floated by the Government with eligibility for price preference up to 10% over the quoted amount of the lowest bidder. WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:14:- On 4/11/2020, the Co-operative Department of the Government issued another order on a request from the Managing Director of ULCCS to undertake all types of work on preferential treatment. Accordingly, the Government granted sanction to ULCCS to have preference of work in the light of government order dated 13/11/1997. The Government by an order dated 13/6/2023 exempted ULCCS from producing eligibility certificates, in the light of the fact that the above society has been recognised as an accredited agency by the Government.
3. In the matters pertaining to writ appeals, the challenges were raised against these orders. The learned Single Judge negated the challenge, holding that the preference is given to the ULCCS as a matter of State policy and does not involve any infringement of fundamental rights in this matter. Some of the writ petitions raising similar challenges have also been tagged. These writ petitions raised additional challenges to the subsequent government orders that modified the PWD manual to ensure preference for labour societies, especially ULCCS.
4. We heard the matter in detail. We heard Shri Santhosh Mathew who appeared for the appellant in the writ appeals and for WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:15:- the writ petitioner a Builders Association of India and others in W.P.(C).No.27723/2023 and connected writ petitions. We heard Shri Haris Beeran, who appeared for the writ petitioner in W.P (C) 23696/2023. We also heard the learned Advocate General Shri K.Gopalakrishna Kurup and Shri M.Sasindran who appeared for ULCCS. While the writ petitions and appeals pertain to certain awarded and proposed contracts, we will not delve into the specifics of each contract, as they all hinge on the substantial challenge raised against the government order giving price preference to ULCCS in the government order.
Submissions:
5. The learned counsel, Shri Santhosh Mathew, submitted that the government orders are arbitrary and illegal. Firstly, on the ground that the fundamental rights of private contractors have been violated by executive orders. According to him, fundamental rights cannot be violated through executive orders as executive orders are not law as prescribed under Articles 13(2), 13(3), 14, 15(5) and 19(6) of the Constitution. Expanding on his argument, he highlighted the spoils system and submitted that State policy to extend the benefit to a particular labour society, namely, ULCCS WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:16:- is a part of the spoils system which is against the egalitarian ideals enshrined in the Constitution. He asserted that providing price preference would drain the public exchequer without benefiting the public at large. He also emphasized that granting such preferential treatment to a labor society compromises public interest. He also relied on the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and argued that executive instructions issued under the Essential Commodities Act to secure an equitable distribution of goods at fair prices are based on the plenary power issued under the Act and in the absence of any legislative mandate, executive instructions cannot regulate or prohibit the production and supply of goods and services. The learned counsel further pointed out to the various provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and submitted that provisions under the Co-operative Society do not allow any unlimited price preference but only contemplate providing financial assistance for deserving individuals after taking into account their financial weakness through loans and advances. We shall advert to the various precedents cited by the learned counsel at appropriate stages. The learned counsel for one of the writ petitioners, Shri Haris Beeran argued that government orders contravene Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution. WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:17:- According to him, fairness as emphasized in Article 14 of the Constitution is an essential ingredient. Treating contractors of the same class disparately constitutes unfair treatment and is against the public interest, and thus violative of Article 14. According to him, a responsible Government is bound to create a level playing field for all builders, ensuring principles of fairness and equity in competition. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Government policy cannot be subjected to judicial review. It is submitted that no one has a fundamental right to obtain a contract from the Government. The Government is like any other awarder of the contract and can award the contract based on sound policies to advance common interest. The learned counsel Shri M.Sasindran appearing for ULCCS submitted that the above society was established in the year 1925. It is contended that the labourers are the members of the society and also submitted that the Government holds 84.7% shares of the society. According to the learned counsel, price is not a determining factor in assessing the fairness of the award of the contract; rather the broader interest of the State plays a crucial role as a decisive factor to determine fairness. He elaborated on the premise of socialist ideology as proclaimed in the Constitution, and submitted WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:18:- that fair distribution of assets and wealth of the State to reach out to a large section of the Society is the basis for preferential treatment given to labour society. He emphasized that members of the labour society are the real beneficiaries of the price preference, benefiting a large number of workers engaged by them. The learned counsel highlighted that nearly 14,000 labourers and staff are the direct beneficiaries of the work undertaken by the labour society. It is argued that unlike the individual benefits accrued to private contractors, the benefits of work undertaken by the labour society are distributed among labourers, who constitute the primary members of the society.
Discussions:
I.The Government and awarding of contract:
6. The Government is free to enter into a contract with various entities, individuals, co-operative society, etc. Normally the Government cannot carry out its functions of undertaking works which are done by private parties. The Government will have to entrust a range of the work undertaken by them through private hands while scheming the public function. Instead of public WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:19:- servants implementing Government projects, the Government engages private parties through contracts to perform the work. However, outsourcing its work to private players often faces legal challenges, as the process itself may be flawed for any reasons sustainable under the Constitutional parameters. Although the Constitution stipulates that all contracts made in the exercise of executive power shall be executed on behalf of the President or Governor, it does not specify the manner in which this power should be exercised by the executive. Generally, the legality of public- private arrangements through contracts made by an executive is ensured through the principles of executive accountability to the public and the Constitution. The relationship between the public and private sectors is normally assessed through the scale of accountability, premised to eschew arbitrariness. However, in this case, an argument has been raised that the executive has no power to curtail the fundamental right to engage in contract through executive orders, except through the plenary power of the legislation. Shri Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the appellants and for some of the petitioners relied on the following judgments: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala [(1986) 3 SCC 615] paras.9 to 14, 16 and 17; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, [(2019) WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:20:- 1 SCC 1] para.270.6, 498-504; Raju Sebastian and Others v. Union of India and Others [2019 (4) KHC 615] para.12 and 13 and 20; and Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP[(1982) 1 SCC 39]; to argue that executive instructions or order cannot curtail fundamental rights. He submitted that in the absence of law enacted by the Legislature, such restrictions cannot be imposed on fundamental rights.
7. This argument proceeds on the premise that the freedom to carry out any occupation or trade under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution also extends to obtaining a contract from the Government. This, according to us is a wrong notion on fundamental rights. The freedom to pursue any occupation or business does not automatically grant the right to demand the award of a contract. The right to demand a contract is distinct from the right to remove barriers to engage in trade or business. A right presupposes legal interest with a corresponding duty on the Government. The jural postulates as mentioned above are imminent in a claim based on fundamental rights as well. The Constitution nowhere acknowledges such rights of a contractor. The Government also has equal freedom in the matter of awarding contracts like ordinary citizens. This WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:21:- freedom emanates from executive power. However, this freedom is circumscribed by constitutional accountability, preventing arbitrary actions. The steer of this restriction of choice is founded on Article 14, making the executive accountable to the Constitution and the public. Nonetheless, this accountability should not be misconstrued as implying that citizens have a fundamental right to demand a contract from the State. Article 19(6) of the Constitution contemplates law imposing restrictions on fundamental rights conferred upon the citizen. The freedom to carry out trade or business is not synonymous with demand for the award of contract as a matter of right to claim from the Government. In every right, there exists a corresponding relationship, which in turn brings forth the axis of rights and duties. The process of awarding contracts is intertwined with the State's authority, granting it the legal capacity to undertake certain actions, such as awarding contracts in this context. Article 19(6) is regarding curtailing the freedom of the citizen rather than curtailing the power of the executive, as latter's freedom is curtailed only within the sphere of accountability. Therefore, the law as understood in Article 19(6) is the law relating to the law imposing restrictions on the fundamental rights of the citizen and not WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:22:- related to the power of executive authorities' freedom to advance public function. In Achuthan v. State of Kerala [1959 KHC 322] the Apex Court held that no one has a fundamental right to claim a contract from the State and it is entirely permissible for the State to enter into contracts, much like a private party, to select individuals of their choice to fulfill the contracts they wish to undertake. Not being awarded a contract should not be seen as a denial of the right to engage in trade or business. In Krishan v. Government of Kerala [1997 KHC 76], also it was held that although a citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade and business, he has no right to insist upon the Government or other individuals for doing business with them.
8. Citizens do not have any fundamental right to demand a contract from the State. Fundamental rights are acknowledged rights of citizens to express their will in a sphere of their choice. The State's sphere of activity is limited by the Constitution including its engagement in trade, commerce, and award of contract. The State's freedom to contract and to award the contract is not the same as the fundamental right of a citizen to engage in trade and occupation. Therefore, the authority of the State to allocate WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:23:- contracts, according to its discretion, does not necessitate legislation by the legislature, as it does not amount to curbing the freedom of citizens. It is only subjected to those limitations as prescribed under the Constitution. That would become more restrictive when the State engages private entities to carry out its functions, as it must treat all such entities without discrimination. Article 14 of the Constitution does not contemplate equality of unequals. The labourers who lack the resources to compete with affluent individual contractors, forming a co- operative society to compete with such contractors who have all wherewithal, cannot be considered as belonging to the same category. Article 14 acts as a safeguard against arbitrary power and discrimination, thereby holding the executive accountable to both the Constitution and the public. Whether the State has any justifiable reason to treat labour society differently will also have to be discussed here.
9. Decisions regarding executive orders that grant price preference to co-operative societies must be made based on the executive's accountability to the Constitution and the public. WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:24:- II Price Preference to the labour society and challenge thereon.
10. It is apparent that granting price preference to labour society would result in economic loss to the State. Highlighting such apparent arbitrariness in such a decision and underscoring the discrimination by treating private entities differently, the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners (contractors) argued that equality of law would imply the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual. It is their argument that Article 14 forbids discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances and conditions. According to them all contractors, as far as the Government stand on the same footing, require equal protection from the State while considering the award of the contract. It is further argued that by State policy, a monopoly will be created in favour of one society at the cost of exchequer. It was submitted that when all other factors are equal and competing parties are also equal, the standard rule is that the lowest bid should be accepted. Placing reliance on Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., [(2007) 8 SCC 1], the learned counsel further elaborated WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:25:- their argument and submitted that level playing field is important to consider under Article 19(i)(g) therefore, co-operative societies as well as private contractors have to be treated equally. Also placing reliance on Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd., [(2005) 4 SCC 456] it is submitted that fairness and reasonableness are the dominant consideration for the Government while awarding the contract. The learned counsel Santhosh Mathew also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Limited v. Cavalet India Ltd. & Ors. [(1999) 1 SCC 492]; Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East Frontier Railway, [(2014) 3 SCC 760]; O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl. Dy. Collector, [(1994) 6 SCC 456] to hold the argument that the decision-making process of the executive must be reasonable, and any relaxation must be bona fide to actuate public interest. The learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India, [(2004) 5 SCC 364]; and argued that the State's freedom cannot be used as a clock for conferring benefit to a few and creation of a monopoly would result in inequalities in opportunities.
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:26:- III The State policy on Distributive justice and Economic justice:
11. The concept of the welfare State, as envisioned by the Indian Constitution, places the responsibility on the State to ensure the welfare of its citizens. This is possible only by providing adequate means of livelihood. The preamble ensures its citizens not only political and socialist justice but also economic justice.
12. During the discussions in the Constituent Assembly regarding the economic order of the country, Shri Brajeshwar Prasad suggested that the future of India must be secured in socialism.
According to the learned member, he believed in a socialist order and socialism means an egalitarian socialist order. The learned member said that equality of opportunity without equality of income is a mere shibboleth. Though the expression "socialist" was not initially included in the preamble, it was introduced through the Constitution 42nd Amendment in 1976. The concept of socialism is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but these principles are often invoked to make the directive principles more comprehensive and practical. The relevant portion of the constituent assembly discussion is reproduced here:
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:27:- "Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I have laid stress on another word. I refer to the Word 'Socialist'. I believe that the future of India is in Socialism. I believe in a Socialist order. When I say that I believe in a socialist order. I do not mean that I accept the Marxian interpretation of History. I do not believe in class war nor in the materialist Philosophy which is so widely prevalent among the socialist circles. By socialism I mean an equalitarian social order. Equality of opportunity without equality of income is a mere shibboleth. I believe that in India we have to evolve a new type of socialism consistent with the tradition and history of this land. The theory of materialism is a well-knit dogma. I think that we people in India have not to learn anything from Germany on philosophical speculation."
13. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130] Desai, J. said:
"The principle aim of socialist State is to eliminate inequality and status and standards of life. The basic frame work of socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and specially provide security from cradle to grave. This amongst others on economic side envisaged economic equality and equitable distribution of income. This is a blend of Marxism and Gandhism leaning heavily towards Gandhian socialism."
14. The welfare State canalises its function to fulfill the aspiration of the citizen in accordance with Constitutional principles and philosophy. L. C. Golak Nath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [1967 KHC 740] the Apex Court spoke about the preamble:
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:28:- "It contains in a nutshell, its ideals and its Aspirations. The preamble is not a platitude but the mode of its realisation is worked out in detail in the Constitution."
15. Article 39(c) outlines the guiding principles for the State to prevent wealth concentration and promote means of production for the common good. Additionally, Article 43A emphasizes worker participation in industrial management, while Article 43B refers to the promotion of co-operative society by the State. These constitutional provisions aim to shape the economic structure by enhancing production capabilities and ensuring equitable wealth distribution. Another aspect of economic policy aims to alleviate the sense of injustice, as those at a disadvantage would fear that in the economic structure of the State, those who are having an advantage alone would benefit from the State. When formulating economic or social policies, the State's primary concern is the pursuit of justice. This concept of justice hinges on balancing advantages and disadvantages within society. John Rawls in his seminal book A 'Theory of justice' (Rawls 1971) and 'Political Liberalism' (1993) proposed two principles of justice. WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:29:- ● Each person has an equal claim to fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value. ● Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:(a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
This gave rise to the idea of distributive justice, which focuses on the equitable distribution of resources across diverse groups. This idea is against the concentration of wealth on individuals. It promotes the distribution of wealth to impact community interest.
16. Peter Vallentyne in his article Distributive Justice argues on prioritarianism as a pattern of distribution. 1 1 Available @ https://philarchive.org/rec/VALDJ , last visited on 11/4/24 WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:30:- "Pure egalitarianism is concerned with the purely comparative concern of giving people equal shares, whereas prioritarianism is concerned with making people's lives go better, with greater importance assigned to lives that are going less well."
17. In an article by Arnold F Adolf Mckee2 he explains distributive justice as:
"Turning now to distributive justice in my preferred sense and beginning with the stage of basic concept, I take this as requiring a fair sharing out of community benefits and burdens among members. When a group of individuals composes a communion, properly speak- ing, (cf., a labor union and a crowd at an accident), certain common goods and charges arise, and distributive justice calls for equivalence between what is due to or from each and what is received or contributed. In the modern state what are primarily in question in the economic domain are public and merit goods and the means of financing them. At bottom, distributive justice is a form of virtue, of course, concerned with human behavior, even if, as in all talk about justice, we tend to focus in a natural way on the reflection in practical affairs of behaviour. Accordingly, the obligation to ensure distributive justice falls primarily on those in authority; citizens for their part have the duty in social justice (its origin as "legal" justice makes the point clearer) of complying with the just decisions of the government and its executive arm."
18. As our preamble proclaims, justice encompasses both social justice and economic justice. It promises transformation 2 Review of Social Economy, Arnold F Mckee, XXXIX VOLUME, 1981 WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:31:- through universally acknowledged measures. Social choice theory and welfare economics serve as a method of preference to reflect the values of social change. American economist Kennath J. Arrow explored social choice theory. This theory is related to translating individual preferences into the preferences of the group. Our Constitution prioritizes collective transformation over individual preferences. This group transformation is not only confined to the transformation of socially and economically marginalized communities on social indices but also empowering economically disadvantaged groups. Economic justice is rooted not in social criteria but rather in addressing economic disadvantages. Amartya Sen, an Indian economist, in his article "Social Choice and Social Welfare" reflected on Arrows view and states about social choice theory for welfare economics as follows:
"The study of social choice as a formal discipline first came into its own in the late eighteenth century, when the subject was pioneered by French mathematicians, particularly J. C. Borda and Marquis de Condorcet. The intellectual climate of the time was greatly influenced by the European Enlightenment, with its interest in reasoned construction of a social order, and its commitment to the creation of a society responsive to people's preferences."
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:32:-
19. There may be various ideals to comprehend justice and while the Courts are not experts in defining ideals, they are experts in holding that the Constitution recognizes such ideals in defining justice. Another aspect of justice is the dimension of the welfare State. The concept of the welfare State itself embodies economic justice. Article 39, Directive Principles of State Policy are considered fundamental in the governance of the Country. Article 39B specifies that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are distributed to subserve the common good. Rawls' concept of justice as fairness revolves around regulating social institutions for collective benefit and for the advantage of all for cooperation. Rawls' argument is that "a just system must generate its own support. This means that it must be arranged so as to bring about its members the corresponding sense of justice, an effective desire to act in accordance with rules for the reasons of justice3"
20. In Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, [(1996) 10 SCC 104], the Apex Court opined as follows in para.11 and 13. 3 Theory of justice, The concept of justice in political economy chapter V, Page 261 WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:33:-
11. The Preamble of the Constitution is the epitome of the basic structure built in the Constitution guaranteeing justice -- social, economic and political -- equality of status and of opportunity with dignity of person and fraternity. To establish an egalitarian social order, the trinity, the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights in Part III and Directive Principles of State Policy (for short, 'Directives') in Chapter IV of the Constitution delineated the socio-economic justice. The word 'justice' envisioned in the Preamble is used in a broad spectrum to harmonise individual right with the general welfare of the society. The Constitution is the supreme law. The purpose of law is realisation of justice whose content and scope vary depending upon the prevailing social environment. Every social and economic change causes change in the law. In a democracy governed by rule of law, it is not possible to change the legal basis of socio-economic life of the community without bringing about any corresponding change in the law. In interpretation of the Constitution and the law, endeavour needs to be made to harmonise the individual interest with the paramount interest of the community keeping pace with the realities of ever-changing social and economic life of the community envisaged in the Constitution. Justice in the Preamble implies equality consistent with the competing demands between distributive justice with those of cumulative justice. Justice aims to promote the general well-being of the community as well as individual's excellence. The principal end of society is to protect the enjoyment of the rights of the individuals subject to social order, well-being and morality. Establishment of priorities of liberties is a political judgment.
13. Social justice is the comprehensive form to remove social imbalances by law harmonising the rival claims or the interests of different groups and/or sections in the social structure or individuals by means of which alone it would be possible to build up a welfare State. The ideal of economic justice is to make equality of status meaningful WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:34:- and life worth living at its best removing inequality of opportunity and of status -- social, economic and political.
21. In Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, [(2012) 10 SCC 1]
113. Finally, reading auction as a constitutional mandate would be impermissible because such an approach may distort another constitutional principle embodied in Article 39(b). The said Article enumerating certain principles of policy, to be followed by the State, reads as follows:
"39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.--The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing--
(a)***
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;"
The disposal of natural resources is a facet of the use and distribution of such resources. Article 39(b) mandates that the ownership and control of natural resources should be so distributed so as to best subserve the common good. Article 37 provides that the provisions of Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down therein are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Therefore, this Article, in a sense, is a restriction on "distribution" built into the Constitution. But the restriction is imposed on the object and not the means. The overarching and underlying principle governing "distribution" is furtherance of common good. But for the achievement of that objective, the Constitution uses the generic word "distribution". Distribution has broad contours and cannot be limited to meaning only one method i.e. auction. It envisages all such methods available for distribution/allocation of natural resources which ultimately subserve the "common good".
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:35:- "119. The norm of "common good" has to be understood and appreciated in a holistic manner. It is obvious that the manner in which the common good is best subserved is not a matter that can be measured by any constitutional yardstick--it would depend on the economic and political philosophy of the Government. Revenue maximisation is not the only way in which the common good can be subserved. Where revenue maximisation is the object of a policy, being considered qua that resource at that point of time to be the best way to subserve the common good, auction would be one of the preferable methods, though not the only method. Where revenue maximisation is not the object of a policy of distribution, the question of auction would not arise. Revenue considerations may assume secondary consideration to developmental considerations."
22. It is in this background the role of the co-operative societies and their importance in the distribution of ownership and control of material resources preventing concentration of wealth have to be understood.
IV. The earliest co-operative movement and its economic ideals:
23. In 1844 Rochdale pioneers in Lancashire in England showed the world how ordinary people could become powerful through co- operative movement. The labourers who organized the Rochdale Pioneers, 150 years ago, were people suffering from the social dislocations of the industrial revolution. They struggled to survive periodic unemployment, low pay, unhealthy cities, and dangerous workplaces. They had no social benefits--no insurance or WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:36:- health care or pensions from their employers or from the state. They were dependent on merchants who were sometimes unscrupulous, who exploited the helplessness of the poor by selling at high prices, by adulterating goods, or by trapping them with offers of credit. And the Rochdale labourers faced these challenges in a time and place when they had no vote, no democratically elected government to represent them, no interventionist state to protect them. Their answer to daunting social problems was a special kind of self-help: mutual self-help, in which they would help themselves by helping each other. It was a small start to a large international movement4
24. The Co-operative movement embodies a community endeavor. Part IX B of the Constitution, introduced by the 97th amendment, embodies the realization of an economic model aimed at regulating the distribution of wealth. The principles of co-operative movement encompass self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, 4 (The Meaning of Rochdale: The Rochdale Pioneers and the Co-operative Principles by by Brett Fairbairn , viewed from https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/) WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:37:- equity and solidarity. Article 243ZI of the constitution reads thus:
'Subject to the provisions of this Part, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies based on the principles of voluntary formation, democratic member-control, member-economic participation and autonomous functioning.' These principles ensure shared community benefit. In the post-
independence era, cooperative development received a boost, with cooperatives being given a vital role in the various plans formulated by the Planning Commission. The First Five Year Plan (1951-56), outlined in detail the vision of the cooperative movement in India and the rationale for emphasizing cooperatives and panchayats as preferred organizations for economic and political development. The Plan emphasized the adoption of the cooperative method of organization to cover all aspects of community development. It provided for the setting up of urban cooperative banks, industrial cooperatives of workers, consumer cooperatives, housing cooperatives, diffusion of knowledge through cooperative training and education and recommended that every WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:38:- government department follow the policy of building up cooperatives.5
25. These executive orders are grounded in well-established principles and economic policies of the Government, with the backing of the Constitution. Its validity is not tested on the basis of loss or gain to the public exchequer. The Court is not the master of governance but rather the State is responsible for shaping its policy in line with constitutional objectives. If the distribution of assets and wealth is intended to benefit a co-
operative society, any monopoly created thereon cannot be said to be a disadvantage to the group left out, as the group was left out based on a fair dealing on the anvil of economic policy of the State. The revenue gain or revenue loss is not the criteria upon which a policy should be tested. The court cannot interfere with the policy except in cases where it results in manifest arbitrariness. If the State has adhered to economic policies consistent with constitutional objectives, it cannot be questioned through judicial review. The labourers of co-operative society belonged to the least advantaged group, while an individual 5 https://www.cooperation.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-12/History_of_cooperatives_Movement.pdf WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:39:- contractor belonged to the advantageous distinct group. Although both groups may share the same subject in pursuing business goals, if the State can identify distinction, not related to the subject, but differentiation on a larger goal; they become distinct in the eyes of the Constitution. There cannot be any symmetrical claim based on the subject of the contract awarded as claimants are asymmetrically placed in terms of state policy. State policy aims to foster co-operative society (rather it is used as a means) while prioritising the collective interest of the community. The learned author Michelle Maisese in his article on distributive justice 6 refers as follows: "some suggest a system of competition that includes safety nets for those who cannot compete. This sort of system combines the principle of equity with that of need. It attempts to reward people for their productivity at the same time that it ensures their basic needs are met". 7The focus of the executive order, though ultimately related to the award of the contract, is essentially a focus to promote community interest consistent with the policies of the welfare State. Therefore, individual contractors cannot claim parity of treatment with co- 6 Review of social economy Arnold F Mckee,XXXIX Volume 1981 7 Review of social economy Arnold F Mckee, XXXIX Volume, 1981 WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:40:- operative entities. The Court cannot find any arbitrariness in government having such policies in pursuit of the larger well-being of the community. In the absence of any fundamental right that can be claimed by the individual contractors, the rest is a matter of State policy and where no parity can be claimed as the object of differentiation is not in recognising individual interest but rather the larger community interest.
In the light of the discussions, we find no reason to interfere in the matter. Writ appeals fail and writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE ms WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:41:- APPENDIX OF WA 47/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NUMBERED AS G.O.(ORDINARY) NO.568/2020/GO-OP. DATED 04.11.2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:42:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16921/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S NIT DATED 13.04.2023 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BID DOCUMENT FOR THE WORK DATED NIL.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 41/2020/PWD
DATED 19.03.2020
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION
CONFIRMATION DATED 03.05.2023
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT
FOR THE WORK DATED 18.05.2023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE BOQ CHART
DATED 18.05.2023 AND THE BOQ SUMMARY
DETAILS UPLOADED WITH EXT. P5
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS.) NO. 135/97/CO-OP
DATED 13.11.1997
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 44/04/PWD DATED
19.03.2004
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 181/08/CO-OP
DATED 02.08.2008.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 311/14/FIN DATED
30.07.2014
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.423/14/FIN DATED
30.07/2014
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.11/2015/FIN.
DATED 08.01.2015
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 339/2015/FIN
DATED 07.08.2015
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT) NO. 568/2020/CO-OP
DATED 04.11.2020
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS.) NO. 44/2020 DATED
14.05.2020
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2023
IN W.P.(C) NO. 16780/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) A true copy of the judgment dated 17-11-
2020 in W.P.(C) No. 3760 of 2020
WA No.44/2021 and connected cases
-:43:-
Exhibit R3(b) True copy of the G.O.(MS) No.284/74 AD.
dated 28-10-1974
Exhibit R3(c) True copy of the G.O.MS 136/78/AD. Dated
12-05-1978
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINANCIALS OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2021-2022 Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NUMBER 10/2023/CO-OP DATED 13.06.2023 Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NUMBER 31/10/09 DATED 09.11.2009 OF THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(b) True copy of GO(P) No.58/12/PWD dated 04.08.2012 Exhibit R1(a) Relevant pages of the clause 1913 of PWD Manual WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:44:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23696/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MAJOR WORKS EXECUTED BY PETITIONER DURING PREVIOUS 5 YEARS Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER PUBLISHED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 01/06/2023 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT AT THE TECHNICAL STAGE DATED 21/06/2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINANCIAL BID SUMMARY Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS.) NO. 135/97/CO-OP DATED 13.11.1997 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF G.O (MS.) Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS.) NO. 181/08/ CO-OP DATED 02.09.2008 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF G.O (MS.) Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS) NO.60/2019/PWD DATED 27.12.2019 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS).NO.41/2020/PWD DATED 19/03/2020 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 4/2021 /CO-OP; DATED 09/02/2021 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS.) NO.6/2022/PWD DATED 19.02.2022 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P© NO.
24162 OF 2022 DATED 23.11.2022 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A NO.132/2023 DATED 31/01/2023 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NO. 3033/2023 DATED 17/02/2023 Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS.) NO. 21/2022/PWD DATED 29.07.2022 Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O NO. 10/2023/CO-OP DATED 13.06.2023 Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF TENDER SUMMARY REPORT OF TENDER ID. 2019-KFRB-306706-1 WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:45:- Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT OF TENDER ID. 2018- KFRB -214255-1 Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE BID SUBMITTED BY THEM IN THE SUBJECT WORK DATED 13/02/1925 Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE BOQ SUMMARY DETAILS OF CENTRALLY SPONSORED FUNDS IN TENDER ID:
2023- MORTH-746499-1 AND TENDER ID: 2023- MORTH- 74769-1 DATED NIL Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF 44TH TENDER APPROVAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 01.07.2023 IN THE CHAMBER OF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PWD Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP © 16780 OF 2023 DATED 26.05.2023 Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATA OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY EXTRACTED FROM THE WEBSITE OF ULCCS LTD Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29442 OF 2022 DATED 03.01.2023 Exhibit P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 22.07.2023 Exhibit P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 20.07.2023 SEND BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) A true copy of the certificate dated 06-10-
2023 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Vatakara Exhibit R2(b) A true copy of the G.O.(MS) No.44/01/PWD dated 19-03-2004 Exhibit R2(e) A true copy of the PWD registration certificate of the 2nd respondent Exhibit R2(c ) A true copy of the G.O.(Rt)NO.568 2020 Co-
op dated 04-11-2020 Exhibit R2(d) A true copy of the judgment dated 17-11- 2020 in W.P.(C) No.3760 of 2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:46:- Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE HON'BLE MINISTER BEFORE THE LEGISATIVE ASSEMBLY OF KERALA DATED 09.08.2023 Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE HON'BLE MINISTER BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF KERALA 09.08.2023 Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN WP © 29442 OF 2022 WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:47:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27723/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.
G.O.(MS.) NO. 135/97/CO-OP DATED 13.11.1997 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.(B) G.O.(MS.) NO. 44/04/PWD DATED 19.03.2004 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.(C) G.O.(MS.) NO. 181/08/CO-OP DATED 02.08.2008 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.(D) G.O.(MS.) NO. 41/2020/PWD DATED 19/03/2020 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.(E) G.O.(RT.) NO. 568/2020/CO-OP. DATED 14.11.2020 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.
(F) G.O.(MS.) NO. 10/2023/CO-OP DATED 13.06.2023 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINANCIALS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2021-2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O. (MS.) NO. 44/2020 DATED 14.05.2020 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NUMBER 31/10/09 DATED 09.11.2009 OF THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O.(P) NO. 311/14/FIN DATED 30.07.2014 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO. G.O (MS) NO.423/14/FIN DATED 26.09.2014 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O.(P) NO.11/2015/FIN. DATED 08.01.2015 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O.(P) NO. 339/2015/FIN., DATED 07.08.2015 Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY CVCC DATED 05.12.2020 TO THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, KRFB WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:48:- Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF FILE NO.PWD-D1/462/2017-PWD OF THE PWD.
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF A LIST PERTAINING TO MEMBERS 1ST PETITIONERS ASSOCIATION .
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ASSOCIATION DATED 11.01.1983.
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION ISSUED BY THE STATE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR FILING THIS WRIT PETITION.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4(b) True copy of the Government Letter No.PWD-
H3/2/2019/PWD dated 3.12.2019 EXHIBIT R4(a) True copy of the judgment in WP(C).No.3189 and 3760/2020 dated 17.11.2020 EXHIBIT R4(C) True copy of the G.O.(MS)NO.4/2021/Co-op DATED 09.02.2021 Exhibit R3(a) A true copy of the share certificate dated 06.10.2023 issued by the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Vadakara Exhibit R3(b) A true copy of the judgment dated 17-11- 2020 in W.P.(c) No. 3760 of 2020 Exhibit R3(c) A true copy of the G.O.(MS) No.284/74 AD.
dated 28-10-1974 Exhibit R3(d) A true copy of the G.O.MS 136/78/AD dated 12-05-1978 Exhibit R3(e) A true copy of the relevant extracts of the bye laws approved by the Co-operative Department Exhibit R3(f) A true copy of the details of the benefits provided by the society to the labourers WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:49:- APPENDIX OF WA 44/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NUMBERED AS G.O.(ORDINARY) NO.568/2020/CO-OP DATED 04/11/2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.