Kerala High Court

P.I. Liyakath Ali vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 3 February, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

     WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/14TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.25988 OF 2020(W)


PETITIONER:

               P.I. LIYAKATH ALI, AGED 54,
               S/O IBRAHIM, PROPRIETOR, GOLD STAR,
               PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 553.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.MOHAMED YOUSEFF T.M.(SR)
               SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN
               SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI
               SRI.SUBIN K SUDHEER

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
               THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
               LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
               MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELIBHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD,
               GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

      3        DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO,
               UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM P.O.,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 553.

      4        DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, IDUKKI TALUK,
               KATTAPPANA P.O., PIN-685 553, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

      5        DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO,
               DEVEKULAM TALUK, MUNNAR P.O.,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 613.

      6        MANAGER, NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT(NFSA),
               SUPPLYCO HEAD OFFICE, MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD,
               GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.

      7        THE VIGILANCE MANAGER,
               KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION,
               (SUPPLYCO), MAVELIBHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD,
               GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.
 WP(C)No.25988/2020

                             2




      8      MOHAMMED ISMAIL, SAFAMANZIL,
             NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 553.

      9      THE MANAGING PARTNER,
             AST ENTERPRISES, SCB BUILDING,
             AMBALAMPADY, MEKKADAMPU P O,
             MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-682 316.

      10     P.A. PAULACHAN, THIRUTHINADHI HOUSE,
             CHAMBANNUR, ANGAMALI SOUTH P.O., PIN-683572.

      11     SAM JOSEPH, AGE NOT KNOWN
             FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
             VALIYAPARAMBIL, CHELAKKOMBU P.O.,
             KARUKACHAL PIN 686 540
             (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 19.01.2021 IN
             I.A.NO.3/2021)

             R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN
             R2-R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
             R8-R9 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)
             R10 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU
             R10 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.25988/2020

                                 3




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021

The petitioner is a Transporting Contractor with the 2 nd

respondent-Supplyco since 2017. Ext.P1 series would

show that the petitioner has been transporter of Supplyco.

By Ext.P2, tenders were invited for transporting contracts for

various Taluks. The petitioner submitted tenders for Idukki,

Devikulam and Udumbanchola Taluks. The technical bids

were opened on 17.09.2020 by the Technical Evaluation

Committee of respective Taluks and Technical evaluations

were made. The petitioner's technical bid was cleared by

the authorities finding no defects or draw backs. The

petitioner was expecting that on opening the financial bids,

he will be awarded the contract in the three taluks.

2. However, on 07.10.2020, the Vigilance officer of

the Supplyco issued a report to the authorities informing that WP(C)No.25988/2020

the petitioner has been engaged in rice business. On that

ground, the 2nd respondent rejected the bids of the

petitioner.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of technical bids of the

petitioner, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation

dated 08.10.2020 to the Managing Director, Supplyco and

the Depot Manager. In the representation, the petitioner

submitted that he is not dealing in wholesale/retail business

of rice and that he had stopped in dealing rice business long

back. As there was no positive response from the

respondents, the petitioner was forced to file WP(C)No.

22013/2020 before this Court. This Court directed the

Managing Director of Supplyco to consider the grievance of

the petitioner and pass orders on his representation within a

period of two weeks. The petitioner thereupon filed

Ext.P11(a) written statement before the Managing Director

of Supplyco. However, this representation was rejected by

the respondents as per Ext.P12 order dated 10.11.2020. WP(C)No.25988/2020

4. The petitioner would submit that the Vigilance

Officer submitted a report adverse to the petitioner on the

basis of a complaint preferred by one Sam Joseph. The

said Sam Joseph was an employee of the brother-in-law of

the 8th respondent and the 8th respondent is a transporting

contractor. The petitioner would further submit that on the

basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer and rejection of

the bids of the petitioner, a further order Ext.P12(a) was

passed by the respondents, whereby it was directed that in

view of the findings against the petitioner, the contracts of

the petitioner if any subsisting in any place, shall also be

terminated.

5. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders at

Exts.P4, P4(a) to P4(d), P8(a), P12 and P12(a), in this writ

petition on the following grounds: The Vigilance Officer of

Supplyco has no power or authority to order that the bids of

the petitioner should be rejected. The petitioner submits

that he was formerly a headload worker. Being a former WP(C)No.25988/2020

headload worker, the petitioner is in a position to get loading

and unloading works done at a comparatively low but

reasonable rates. This advantage of the petitioner made

him a contractor who can quote lesser amount for

transportation contracts. Therefore the rival contractors

were waiting to oust the petitioner from the field at any cost.

The complaint by the aforesaid Sam Joseph and adverse

report filed by the Vigilance Officer is a result of the

vengeance of the rival contractors.

6. The petitioner further pointed out that technical

bids were open and the rejection of the technical bid of the

petitioner was long thereafter, after a period of 20 days.

This itself would show that the rejection is pre-planned and

executed.

7. The petitioner would further submit that he is not

a dealer in rice. However, at the instance of the Supplyco

itself, more than 8 months before the tender date, the

petitioner had supplied a limited quantity of branded item of WP(C)No.25988/2020

rice to the Supplyco. That isolated supply done at instance

of the Supplyco more than 8 months back, cannot be taken

to described the petitioner as a dealer in rice. Even if an

isolated transaction can be relied on to treat the petitioner

as a dealer, the respondents ought to have noted that the

petitioner dealt with the rice sale eight months ago and

thereafter the petitioner did not indulge in sale of rice.

8. The petitioner would further submit that Clause

(11) (e) of Ext.P2 is not intended to apply in such

circumstances. Clause 11(e) provides that those persons or

his/her close relatives dealing wholesale/retail business of

rice/wheat in the State are not eligible for apply for the

tender. The GST licence of the petitioner would show that

the petitioner is not a dealer in rice. The isolated instance

occurred eight months ago will not disqualify the petitioner

under Clause 11 (e) of Ext.P2 tender.

9. The petitioner would rely on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Daffodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and WP(C)No.25988/2020

another v. State of U.P. and another [2019 KHC 7250] to

contend that even though the issue involved is a

commercial transaction relating to tender, when such gross

illegalities are brought to the notice of this Court, this Court

can definitely exercise the power of judicial review. No

adverse orders can be passed against any person without

giving him an opportunity to represent. The petitioner has

been branded as ineligible to apply for tender without he

being extended with an opportunity of hearing.

10. The learned Senior Counsel assisted by the

counsel for the petitioner further argued that the 8 th

respondent did not upload the requisite affidavit along with

technical bids for Udumbanchola and Idukki Taluks. The 8 th

respondent was the lowest tenderer in the financial bid for

Chingavanam FCI to Kattappanna and Angamaly FCI to

PDS Kattappana. However the 8 th respondent unilaterally

resiled from those bids. As the 8th respondent resiled from

bids, his other bids cannot be considered and the entire WP(C)No.25988/2020

EMD has to be forfeited.

11. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7

submitted that the rejection of the bids of the petitioner and

selection of contractors, were done perfectly in accordance

with law. After the opening of technical bids and before

opening of financial bid, respondents 1 to 7 learnt that the

petitioner has been doing business in rice violating the

conditions in Clause 11(e) of Ext.P2. Therefore the bids

submitted by the petitioner were rejected. Contracts were

awarded to the lowest tender.

12. The petitioner has conceded that he has been

doing business in rice. The contention of the petitioner that

he has dealt with only in branded rice, not affecting the

business of the Supplyco, cannot be accepted. The

petitioner was ineligible to bid. As the petitioner was found

to be disqualified, the respondents issued Ext.P12(a) letter

dated 20.11.2020 directing that if the petitioner is currently

doing any transportation work, those works should be WP(C)No.25988/2020

cancelled. The respondents 2 to 7 have acted bona fide in

accordance with the terms of the tender notification and the

tender conditions. The interim order passed by this Court is

affecting supply of essential articles in the area and hence

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9

pointed out that under clause 11(e) of Ext. P2, there is no

distinction between branded rice or any other rice.

Anybody who is dealing in rice is ineligible to bid and the

petitioner was found disqualified on the basis of an enquiry

made by the Vigilance Officer. There was no undue haste in

passing Ext.P12 order. In the judgment in WP(C) No.

22013/2020, this court ordered to consider and dispose of

the petition of the petitioner within two weeks.

14. The learned counsel for 8th and 9th respondents

further pointed out that the petitioner has admitted that he

has been dealing in rice business. Still in the affidavit filed

by the petitioner Ext.R8(a), the petitioner stated that he is WP(C)No.25988/2020

not doing any such business. The petitioner has filed a

false affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9

stated that pursuant to the opening of the financial bids, the

9th respondent has been appointed as contractor and work

orders are also issued. In the circumstances, the writ

petition is only to be dismissed, contended the counsel for

respondent 8 and 9.

15. The counsel for the 10th respondent argued that

the petitioner himself has given a statement before the

Vigilance Officer admitting that he has dealings in Ponni and

biriyani rice. Now the petitioner cannot turn around and

submit that he has no dealing in rice items. The counsel for

the 10th respondent supported the arguments made on

behalf of respondents 2 to 9.

16. I have heard learned senior counsel assisted by

the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government

Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to WP(C)No.25988/2020

7, learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9 and

learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent.

17. The Clause 11 (e) of Ext.P2 tender notice

stipulates that those persons or his/her close relatives

dealing in wholesale/retail business of rice/wheat in the

State are not eligible for applying for the tender. On the

basis of a complaint received from one Sam Joseph, the

Vigilance Officer caused an enquiry and found that the

petitioner has been supplying rice to Supplyco. As the

petitioner was dealing in rice trade, the Vigilance Officer

issued Ext.P8(a) proceedings finding that grant of contract

to the petitioner who is dealing in rice trade, is against the

conditions of tender notification and is likely to generate

complaints in future. On the basis of the report of the

Vigilance Officer, the respondents disqualified the petitioner

from technical clearance. This court do not find it

unreasonable.

18. The contention of the petitioner is that technical WP(C)No.25988/2020

bids were originally opened and processed on 17.09.2020.

As on that date the petitioner's technical bid was also

cleared. After 20 days, on 07.10.2020, the technical bid of

the petitioner was rejected. This is clearly arbitrary and

unsustainable. In this regard, it is to be noted that when the

technical bids were processed on 17.09.2020, there were

no complaints against the petitioner to the effect that he has

been involved in rice business. However subsequently the

Vigilance Officer of Supplyco found that the petitioner has

been supplying rice to the Supplyco itself. As the said factor

was against the conditions of tender, the technical bid of the

petitioner was rejected.

19. The petitioner's further contention is that due to

his past experience in the loading unloading area, he was in

an advantageous position to quote lowest bids and knowing

this advantage of the petitioner, other competitors wanted to

oust him from bidding. Ext. P8(a) was issued by the

Vigilance Officer on 07.10.2020 and on the same day the WP(C)No.25988/2020

technical bid of the petitioner which was earlier cleared, was

rejected. Ext. P8(a) was therefore a design only to debar

the petitioner from bidding. This Court finds that Ext. P8(a)

would indicate that the said order was not issued

spontaneously. Ext. P8(a) refers to a proceeding of

Manager, NFSA dated 04.09.2020. Therefore it is evident

that the Vigilance officer has conducted an enquiry on the

basis of a complaint received earlier and Ext. P8(a) is only a

result of such enquiry. The petitioner would contend that

the Vigilance Officer of Supplyco has no authority to pass

an order in the nature of Ext.P8(a). This Court is not

inclined to accept the said argument. Dealing in rice and

wheat is a disqualification for bidders. If there are

complaints against the bidders in this regard, the Supplyco

can make appropriate enquiry through a Vigilance Officer.

Ext.P8(a) is a result of such enquiry. I do not find anything

illegal or irregular in Supplyco accepting enquiry report of its

Vigilance Officer.

WP(C)No.25988/2020

20. The further contention of the petitioner is that

after clearing his technical bid, the petitioner was

disqualified during the processing of financial bid, which is

impermissible. But from the pleadings made by the

respondents 2 to 7 and the documents made available to

this Court, it is evident that rejection of the technical bid of

the petitioner was before 4:30 PM on 07.10.2020 and

opening of the financial bids was after 4:30 PM. The

respondents 2 to 7 specifically stated that due to the

rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, his financial

bid was not opened at all. In such circumstances it cannot

be said that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on

07.10.2020 has vitiated the tender proceedings.

21. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

would contend that the term "dealing" referred in Clause

11(e) of Ext.P2 must be taken as current dealing. The

petitioner had stopped dealing in rice eight months before

the tender. This court is unable to accept the said WP(C)No.25988/2020

argument. The petitioner was doing trade in a number of

edible items. He has GST registration. The petitioner has

conceded before the authorities that he has dealing in rice

also eight months ago. In the circumstances, it cannot be

said that the ouster of the petitioner based on Clause 11 (e)

is illegal or arbitrary.

22. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that Sam Joseph who made a complaint against

the petitioner was an employee of the relative of the 8 th

respondent. The 8th respondent being a competitor, the

complaint was made malafide and therefore the petitioner

ought not have been excluded based on an enquiry

emanating from such complaint. Evenif it is true that the

complaint was made with vested interest, the petitioner has

admitted that he had dealings in rice, which factor would

disqualify the petitioner from bidding. The further allegation

of the petitioner is that the 8 th respondent did not upload

requisite affidavits along with his tender and therefore the 8 th WP(C)No.25988/2020

respondent also ought to have been disqualified. The 8 th

respondent would submit that while uploading affidavits in

respect of bids relating to various Taluks, some pages of the

affidavits happened to be duplicated. However on noticing

this, the petitioner had informed the Tendering Authority

about the mistake and produced the original affidavits.

23. It is further alleged that the 8 th respondent had

resiled from certain bids and therefore following Clauses

11(6), 17 and 18, the 8th respondent ought to have been

disqualified for grant of any contract. The counsel for the 8 th

respondent however would deny the allegation and submit

that though the petitioner has expressed his willingness to

grant contract in respect of certain areas to any other

person, the petitioner has not resiled from entering into

contract. Therefore this court does not find merit in the said

contention of the petitioner.

24. However, it is to be noted that on the basis of the

petitioner was ousted from bidding, but also by Ext.P12(a),

the respondents have directed to terminate all existing

contracts of the petitioner. While rejection of bid may not

require a prior notice, respondents 2 to 7 cannot terminate

an existing contract without notice and without giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

25. The learned counsel for respondent 8 and 9

would submit that the existing contract of the petitioner is

only a temporary contract liable to be terminated when the

Supplyco appoints new contractors. Furthermore, the

petitioner has admitted his disqualification. Therefore grant

of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would only be an

empty formality and the principles of natural justice cannot

be extended to such an extent. This court is not inclined to

accept the said argument of the counsel for the respondents

8 and 9. The petitioner has a case that his supply of rice

was only on a few occasions, that too to Supplyco only and

was at the instance of Supplyco itself. If the said contention WP(C)No.25988/2020

of the petitioner is correct, then even though he will be

disqualified for participating in Ext. P2 tender due to Clause

11(e) therein, in the matter of termination of existing

contracts that will be an element to be considered.

26. For the facts and reasons stated above the

challenge made by the petitioner against proceedings

pursuant to Ext.P2 has to fail. The writ petition is however

allowed to the limited extent of setting aside Ext. P12(a).

Respondents 2 to 7 however will be at liberty to terminate

the existing contract of the petitioner with notice to him or as

and when new contractors are appointed in the area.

Sd/-

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 17/05/2017 EXECUTED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DT.12.5.17.

EXHIBIT P1(a) photocopy of the agreement dtd.

10.12.2018 executed into by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent for the year 2018-19

EXHIBIT P1(b) photocopy of the agreement dtd.01-01-

2019 executed by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent for the year 2019-

EXHIBIT P1(c) photocopy of the agreement dtd.18.05.2020 executed by the

petitioner with the 2nd respondent for the year 2019-20.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE NFSA 5-

17016/20 DATED 15.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P2(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM NFSA 5/17016/20 DATED 30.7.2020

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTO COPY OF THE RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK.

EXHIBIT P4           PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERATED
                     TENDER    STANDS OF  TENDERS   FOR
                     UDUMPANCHOLA.

EXHIBIT P4(a)        PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERAGED
                     TENDER STATUS OF TENDERS FOR IDUKKI.

EXHIBIT P4(b)        PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM      GENERATED
                     TENDER STATUS OF TENDERS       FOR AND
                     DEVIKULAM TALUK.
 WP(C)No.25988/2020





EXHIBIT P5           PHOTO   COPY   OF   THE  REPRESENTATION
                     SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
                     RESPONDENTS DATED 8.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P6           PHOTO COPY OF THE TECHNICAL BID     AND
                     AFFIDAVIT   SUBMITTED BY   THE      8TH
                     RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6(a)        PHOTO COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
                     BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6(b)        PHOTO COPY OF THE BIDS OF RESPONDENTS
                     WITH RATES QUOTED

EXHIBIT P6(c)        PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION FILED UNDER

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P6(d) PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C0NO.35249/2018

EXHIBIT P7 PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT DATED 10.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P7(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT DATED 10.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 PHOTO COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE INTERNAL NOTE TO THE MANAGER NFSA DATED 7.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P9 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER DATED 23.10.2020

EXHIBIT P10 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.22013/2020 DATED 27.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P11 PHOTO GRAPH OF THE COVER OF THE PONNI RICE.

EXHIBIT P11(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE WP(C)No.25988/2020

2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P12 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P12(a)       PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY OF AN ENDORSEMENT
                     BY    THE   REGIONAL    MANAGER   DATED
                     20.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P13          PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIDS     OF RESPONDENTS
                     WITH RATES QUOTED.

EXHIBIT P13(a)       PHOTOCOPY OF THE REIGHT TO INFORMATION
                     APPLICATION    SUBMITTED    BY     THE
                     PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P14          PHOTOCOPY    OF    THE    JUDGMENT     IN
                     WPC.NO.35249/2018.

EXHIBIT P15          PHOTO    COPY   OF    THE      APPLICATION
                     DTD.09.10.2020   SUBMITTED     UNDER   THE
                     RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P15(a)       PHOTO COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD. 13-
                     10-2020 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
                     INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P16          PHOTOCOPY OF THE GENERAL SALE TAX

(GST) REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P16(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS OF THE GST REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE GST.

EXHIBIT P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19-01-2021 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT NFSA MANAGER EXHIBIT P17(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF TRANSPORTING CONTRACTORS ANNEXED TO EXT.P17.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE R2(a) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY SAM JOSEPH TO WP(C)No.25988/2020

THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R2(b) THE PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE R2(c) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 20.11.2020 INTIMATION.

EXHIBIT R8 A TRUE COY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/8/2020 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH HI TENDER FOR THE CONTRACT SUBMITTED FOR UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK

EXHIBIT R8 B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/8/2020 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH HIS TENDER FOTHT COTNRACT SUBMITTED FOR IDUKKI TALUK

EXHIBIT R8 C TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT OF THE TENDER FINALISED AS ON 7/10/2020 AS PUBLISHED IN THE WBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R8 D TRUE COPY OF THE THE APPROVED TRANSPORTATION RATES ISSED BYTHE 6T RESPONDENT FOR UDUMPAHNCHOLA TALUK

EXHIBIT R8 E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/12/2020 OF THE PETITONER ADDRESSED OT THE 6TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R9 A TRUE COPY OF TH EORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 31/8/207 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANC MANAGER, SUPPLYCO TALUK DEPOT, NEDIMKANDAM

EXHIBIT R9 B TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5/1/2019 DRAWN UP BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE 9TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R9 D TRUE COPY OF THE COMUNICATION DATED 27/11/2020 INTIMATING OF THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THE RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR

ISSUED BYTHE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA ON BEHALF OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT 10(a) TRUE COPY OF THEREPORT OF THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, TOGETHER WITH THE STATEMENT FIVEN BY THE PETITIONER, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.