K.Abdul Rehiman vs The State Farming Corporation Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4038 Ker

WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)
                                  1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

   THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONER/S:

                K.ABDUL REHIMAN
                AGED 62 YEARS
                THOTTARIKIL PURAYIDOM, KALANJOOR P.O.,
                PATHANAMTHITTA

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
                KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED,
                VETTITHITTA P.O., ALIMUKKU,PUNALUR, KOLLAM, KERALA-
                689 696, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

      2         THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER,
                THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED,
                VETTITHITTA P.O., ALIMUKKU,PUNALUR, KOLLAM, KERALA-
                689 696

      3         STAR PLYWOOD,
                ODAKKALI, ASAMANOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683 549,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-ANTHRU P.A.

      4         PIUS ASSOCIATES,
                PILLATTU BUILDING, VARANDARAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR-
                680 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR- PIUS P.M.

      5         ASHRAF OMMER RAWTHER,
                VII/128,KARIYARA P.O., PUNALOOR, KOLLAM-691 332

      6         AMA TRADERS,
                9/344,APPADATHU, PANIPRA ROAD, PANIPRA,
                KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,-686 691, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                PROPRIETOR- ABDUL JABBAR

      7         VARAMBEL ENTERPRISES,
                PPXII/432, KADASSERY, OPP VISHNU TEMPLE, KADASSERY
 WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)
                               2

             POONKULANJI P.O., PUNNALA,KOLLAM-689 695,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR- VISHNU P.S

             R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON 04.02.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)
                                          3



                             P.V.ASHA, J.

------------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No.527 of 2021

------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021

JUDGMENT.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the

1st respondent to reject the tenders submitted by the

respondents 3 to 7 on the ground that they have not

submitted the requisite documents along with the tender; he

seeks a further direction to award the sale of trees in his

favour.

2. The State Farming Corporation- 1st respondent issued

Ext.P1 notice inviting tender on 25.11.2020 for sale of

36306 numbers of Rubber Trees available at Chithalvetti,

Mullumala and Cherupittakavu estates (19 blocks) with the

tender conditions Ext.P2. Petitioner who is a B-Class

Contractor participated in the tender in respect of 1802,

2001 and 1783 numbers of trees in block no.E,F and K of

Chithalvetti estate and in respect of 2271 and 2428 numbers

of trees in block no.17 and 18 of Cherupittakavu as per

Ext.P3 series of price schedule. It is stated that the

petitioner was the bidder who quoted highest price for

block no.F of Chithalvetti estate and block no.17 and 18 of

Cherupittakavu estate. However it is stated that when the WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

bid was submitted on account of technical glitch in the

webportal the particular column was not showing the total

price of trees. It is stated that petitioner had quoted a

sum of Rs.1,755/- as base rate and for the total number of

trees (1802) the total price should have been auto

populated as Rs.13,62,510/- (1802x 1755); but it was

showing only Rs.1,755/- which was the base rate. It is

stated that the 1st respondent awarded the trees of Block

No.E of Chithalvetti to the 3rd respondent and Block K was

awarded to another person. It is stated that in block no.F

of Chithalvetty Estate and Block no.17 and 18 of

Cherupitakavu Estate, though petitioner was the bidder who

quoted the highest price as per Exts.P4 series available in

the e-tender portal, the 1st respondent decided to cancel

the tender and initiated steps for retender. It is stated

that on coming to know about the same, petitioner submitted

Exts.P5 and P6 letters to the 1 st respondent on 14.12.2020

and 22.12.2020 pointing out the fulfillment of all tender

conditions by him and the technical glitches occurred in

the portal. It is stated that 1st respondent did not respond

to his representations. On 21.12.2020, the 1st respondent

issued Ext.P7 notice for re-tender of the Rubber Trees at

Block 7 of Chithalvetti Estate and Block 17 and 18 of WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

Cherupittakavu estate along with trees in other 4 blocks.

Petitioner claims that as there was paucity of time for

challenging the re-tender process he participated in the

re-tender. It is stated that clause 3 directing to quote

the price on block basis, was included in Ext.P8 re-tender

conditions since the 1st respondent had taken note of the

technical glitch occurred in the e-portal; at the same time

out of the 19 blocks, 1st respondent chose to hold re-

tender only in 7 blocks and that in three blocks out of

those 7 which were re-tendered, petitioner was the bidder

who quoted highest price. It is stated that pursuant to the

re-tender notification, petitioner submitted his bid in 6

blocks including the three blocks in which he was the

highest bidder. It is stated that there were three bidders

in each of the 7 blocks in which he participated and in

these blocks respondent no.3 and 6 were the highest bidders

after re-tender. It is stated that Ext.P9 series of the

schedule of price quoted by the bidders for the said 7

blocks would show that the 6th respondent turned out as the

highest bidder in block no.A, D and F of Chithalvetti and

the 3rd respondent turned out to be highest bidder in block

no.17 and 18 of Cherupittakavu and also in Mullumala.

According to the petitioner bids submitted by respondents 3 WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

to 7 were not liable to be considered since their bids were

defective and they had not uploaded the requisite

documents. The following are the infirmities pointed out by

the petitioner:

In the case of the 3rd respondent-Star Plywood:

1. All pages of the tender conditions are not signed.

2. Credit worthiness certificate from the bank is not submitted.

3. Aadhar card not submitted.

4. GST registration certificate not submitted.

5. PAN card not submitted.

In the case of 4th respondent -Pius Associates:

1. Credit worthiness certificate from the bank is not submitted

2. Aadhar card not submitted

3. GST registration certificate not submitted

4. PAN card not submitted In the case of 5th respondent - Ashraf Ommer Rawther:

1. All pages of the tender conditions are not signed

2. Credit worthiness certificate from the bank is not submitted

3. Aadhar card not submitted

4. GST registration certificate not submitted

5. PAN card not submitted In the case of 6th respondent -AMA Traders:

1. Credit worthiness certificate from the bank is not submitted In the case of 7th respondent -Varambel Enterprises it is

stated that:

1. Credit worthiness certificate from the bank is not submitted

2. Aadhar card not submitted WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

3. GST registration certificate not submitted

4. PAN card not submitted.

3. Petitioner claims that the action of 1st respondent

in accepting the tenders of the respondents 3 to 7, who did

not submit/upload the requisite documents along with their

tender is in violation of clause 18B and C of Ext.P8 re-

tender conditions which insists that the bidders shall

submit signed copy of the proof of identity either as

permanent resident certificate issued by the Village

Officer or Election ID card/Passport/Aadhar and in case the

same is not uploaded they would not be considered. The

credit worthiness certificate is another document which is

to be produced apart from Pancard and GST registration

certificate. It is stated that though the petitioner

submitted Ext.P11 representation pointing out the

infirmities in the tenders submitted by respondents 3 to 7

and illegality in accepting their bid, the 1st respondent

did not take any action. The petitioner therefore filed

this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent

to reject the tenders submitted by respondents 3 to 7 and

to award the trees to the petitioner treating him as H1.

4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit

refuting the contentions of the petitioner. It is stated WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

that as per clause 11 and 19 of Exts.P2 and P8 tender

conditions the Corporation reserves full rights to accept

or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reason.

It is stated that clause 14 of Ext.P2 conditions provided

that the trees would only be sold in block. But the

petitioner committed a mistake by not offering the price in

accordance with clause 14 of Ext.P2 tender conditions for

the entire block. According to the respondent there was no

technical glitch of any kind and all other participants

have given the rate for the block. It is stated that the IT

mission server submits the comparison statement through

online e-tender portal from which the Corporation is to

consider highest rate offered by each tender for each

Block. Out of the 19 blocks notified in the original tender

the highest offer in 12 blocks was accepted and

confirmation order was issued to the tenderers who quoted

the highest rate. Producing Ext.R1(a), (b) and (c) BOQ

summaries, the respondent has stated that the contention

of petitioner with respect to the original tender are

baseless. It is stated that the 1st respondent had

considered the representation submitted by the petitioner

and that the decision to re-tender for certain blocks

including Chithalvetti and Cherupitakavu estates was taken, WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

based on the recommendation of the Sales Committee. It is

stated that he had submitted Ext.P6 representation raising

claims on 1st tender after participating in the 2nd tender.

It is stated that the original tender was opened on

10.12.2020. Based on the decision for re-tender, notice for

re-tender was issued on 21.12.2020 giving due opportunity

for the contesting parties. It is stated that a 2 nd tender

became necessary in view of the low rates offered by the

contestants and in order to see that the contestants like

petitioner are not committing repeated glitches while

quoting tenders through IT Portals, that it became

necessary to incorporate clause 3 in the notice inviting

re-tender. The respondent doubted the bonafides of the

petitioner pointing out that the price he quoted in the re-

tender is far less than in the first tender. Regarding the

infirmities pointed out by the petitioner with respect to

the party respondents it is stated that signature in all

the pages of the tender is not necessary when it is

digitally signed. Regarding the other contentions with

respect to the non submission of ID card, Pancard, GST

registration, etc it is stated that the participants had

already submitted those details in the previous occasion

pursuant to Ext.P1 tender. It is further stated that as per WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

clause 12 of Ext.P8 tender the 1st respondent has the

authority to accept or reject any re-tender on any reason.

It is stated that the 3rd respondent is already having

Ext.R1(e) GST registration. It is stated that the

petitioner who quoted rates far below does not have any

right to claim that the trees covered by the re-tender

shall be awarded to him. According to the 1 st respondent

any delay in finalisation of the re-tender would cause

irreparable financial loss to the Corporation which is

already running on loss.

5. Heard Sri.Jaikrishna the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.Renjith Thampan learned senior counsel

appearing for the 1st respondent.

6. While Sri.Jaikrishna asserted that the violation of

tender conditions are sufficient reason for rejection of

the bids submitted by respondents 3 to 7, Sri.Renjith

Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the

circumstances of the case do not warrant any intervention

by this court and any delay in removal and replantation of

trees would affect the Corporation adversely. Relying on

the judgments of the Division Bench in TBAS Construction

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. (M/s.) vs. Union of India

and others : 2018 (4) KHC 865, Pushkarraj Constructions WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) and others v. Silppi Constructions and

Contractors and others : 2019 (3) KHC 566 and Abdul Majeed

K.S. And another vs. Beeru P.K. and others : 2013 (3) KHC

805 (para 11), Indian Railway Catering & Tourism

Corporation Ltd. (M/s.) and another vs. Doshion Veolia

Water Solutions (P) Ltd. (M/s.) and others : 2010 KHC 4740

it was argued that intervention of the court in matters of

contract should be limited to cases where the decision made

by the authority is malafide or intended to favour somebody

or where the process adopted is so arbitrary. It was argued

that the Corporation has taken its decision in public

interest and it has got every right to take such a decision

in the interest of the Corporation and interference at the

instance of petitioner who quoted a very low rate is not

called for.

7. I have considered the rival contentions. The

contention of the petitioner regarding the 1st tender is

that he was the highest tenderer in respect of 4 blocks

while admitting that he could provide only the rate per

tree and not per block, alleging technical glitches in the

portal. Ext.R1(d) minutes of the sales committee would

show that his complaint was considered while confirming the

tenders. The minutes would also show that there were WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

several other participants who had quoted the rate per

block and did not face any such technical glitches as

alleged by the petitioner. Ext.R1(d) would also show that

the decision for re-tendering was taken in the interest of

the Corporation. At any rate petitioner has not challenged

the said decision and has not sought any relief based on

the tender he submitted pursuant to Ext.P1 tender

notification. On the other hand he has participated in the

re-tender that too quoting rate far lower than which he

quoted in the original tender. Petitioner does not have a

case that he is the highest bidder in the re-tender. He is

claiming his chance pointing out the infirmities in respect

of other tenderers who quoted higher price, referring to

clause 13 and 18B and C of Ext.P8 tender conditions.

Regarding the absence of signature in all pages, learned

Counsel for the petitioner has withdrawn the contention,

agreeing that digital signature is sufficient. The other

infirmities pointed out are non production of Pancard, GST

registration, Adhaar card, credit worthiness certificate

received from the Bank, etc. If the 1st respondent found

that those conditions can be relaxed and those are all

matters which could be ensured otherwise, it cannot be said

that their tenders have to be rejected when the amount WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

quoted by them are at a higher rate and that the rejection

of their tenders would defeat the interest of the

Corporation. Therefore, an intervention at the instance of

petitioner who has quoted a very low price, would not be

just or fair. Even if there is violation of clause 18 those

infirmities were found to be curable on production of the

relevant documents. When the tendering authority has found

it proper to accept the tenders from the party respondents

in the interest of the institution this Court is not

expected to interfere with such a decision.

8. It is settled law that in respect of contracts

entered into on behalf of the State or the undertakings

under it, the court can examine only the infirmity if any

in the 'decision-making process' whether it was

unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution; and not the decision

itself. As held by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union

of India: (1994) 6 SCC 651, wherein the scope of judicial

review in contractual matters was explained the terms of

the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial

scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm

of contract; such decisions are made qualitatively by

experts; the court does not sit as a court of appeal but WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made;

the court does not have the expertise to correct the

administrative action; Government must have freedom of

contract; a fair play in the joints is a necessary

concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an

administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere.

However, the decision must not only be tested by the

application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness; but

must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or

actuated by malafides; quashing decisions may impose heavy

administrative burden on the administration and lead to

increased and unbudgeted expenditure. The aforesaid

judgment is reiterated and followed in a series of

judgments. As held in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa:

(2007) 14 SCC 517 so long as a decision relating to award

of contract is bonafide and is in the public interest,

courts are not supposed to interfere by exercising power of

judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in

assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out.

9. In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction

Ltd.: 1999 (1) SCC 492 the Apex Court held that there

should not be any interference under Article 226 in a

dispute between rival tenderers unless substantial amount WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

of public interest was involved or in case the transaction

was vitiated by malafides. In B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v.

Nair Coal Services Ltd.: 2006 (11) SCC 548 it was held that

when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon

due consideration of the tender document submitted by all

the tenderers on their own merits, the Courts have to

exercise judicial restraint once it was found that the

decision of the authority was taken purely in public

interest. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro

Rail Corpn. Ltd.: (2016) 16 SCC 818 it was held that the

employer of a project who authored the tender documents, is

the best person to understand and appreciate its

requirements and interpret its documents. It was held as

follows:

"The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.xxxxx

13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision."

10. In Municipal Corpn., Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd.: (2018) 5 WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

SCC 462 , the Apex Court was considering a case where tenders

were invited for door-to-door collection and transportation of

municipal solid waste. After analysing various judgments with

respect to the scope of judicial review on contractual matters,

the 3 Judge Bench reiterated that the purpose of judicial review

of administrative action is to check whether the choice or

decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice or

decision is sound. If the process adopted or decision made by

the authority is not malafide and not intended to favour

someone, if the process adopted or decision made is neither so

arbitrary nor irrational and if the public interest is not

affected, there should be no interference under Article 226. In

paragraph 45 it was held as follows:

45. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial transactions/contracts. If the decision relating to award of contract is in public interest, the courts will not, in exercise of the power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in awarding the contract is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest by ignoring public interest. Attempts by unsuccessful bidders with an artificial grievance and to get the purpose defeated by approaching the court on some technical and procedural lapses, should be handled by courts with firmness. The exercise of the power of judicial review should be avoided if there is no irrationality or arbitrariness. In the matter on hand, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness on the part of the expert body while in action. So also, we do not find any bias or malafides either on the part of the corporation or on the part of the technical expert while taking the decision. Moreover, the decision is taken keeping in mind the public interest and the work experience of the successful bidder."

11. After analysing almost all the judgments of the

Apex Court, the Division Bench of this court in the WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

judgments in TBAS Construction Supreme Infrastructure India

Ltd. (M/s.) and in Pushkarraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

(M/s.)'s case held that interference with the decisions of

tendering authority must be only in exceptional cases and

while examining the rationality of a decision the court

should look at the matter in the point of view of the

tendering authority and even in cases where there is

procedural lacuna court should refrain from interference if

the decision is for public interest.

12. All the infirmities alleged by the petitioner are

those which the Corporation has considered and found that

the tenderers have already produced it. 1st respondent

cannot be found fault with on the said decision when the

party respondents have quoted a higher amount. There is no

bonafides in the contention of the petitioner that the re-

tender has caused quoting of higher amount by other

tenderers on coming to know about the amount quoted by him.

Petitioner did not even quote either the same amount as he

had quoted in the previous tender or even any higher

amount. The contention that the respondents happened to

quote higher amount on coming to know about the rate quoted

by the petitioner in the previous tender is unsustainable.

It is also pertinent to note that there were altogether 10 WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

blocks for which re-tender was notified. In the light of

the judgments of the apex court that the power of judicial

review in matters of contract are limited and it is for the

tendering authority to decide whether a tender can be

accepted or not in the interest of public, this Court is

not expected to interfere with the re-tender. There is no

allegation of malafides or that the 1st respondent is

favouring anybody.

Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                   P.V.ASHA

rkc                                                    JUDGE
 WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)




                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING     TENDER
                     ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2           TRUE COPY THE TENDER CONDITIONS ISSUED BY
                     THE   1ST  RESPONDENT FROM   THE  WEBSITE
                     5.12.2020

EXHIBIT P3           TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH
                     RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE

PETITIONER FOR BLOCK E OF CHITHALVETTY ESTATE

EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BLOCK F OF CHITHALVETTY ESTATE

EXHIBIT P3B TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BLOCK K OF CHITHALVETTY ESTATE

EXHIBIT P3C TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BLOCK 17 OF CHERPPITTAKAVU ESTATE

EXHIBIT P3D TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BLOCK 18 OF CHERUPPITTAKAVU ESTATE

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BLOCK- F OF CHITHALVETTY ESTATE

EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BLOCK- 17 OF CHERUPPITTAKAVU ESTATE

EXHIBIT P4B TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BLOCK- 18 OF CHERUPPITTAKAVU ESTATE WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-TENDER CONDITIONS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FORM THE WEBSITE

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICE QUOTED BY THE BIDDERS FOR BLOCK A OF CHITHALVETTY ESTATE

EXHIBIT P9A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICE QUOTED BY THE BIDDERS FOR BLOCK D OF CHITHALVETTY ESTATE

EXHIBIT P9B TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICE QUOTED BY THE BIDDERS FOR BLOCK F OF CHITHALVETTY ESTATE

EXHIBIT P9C TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICE QUOTED BY THE BIDDERS FOR BLOCK 17 OF CHERUPPITTAKAVU ESTATE

EXHIBIT P9D TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICE QUOTED BY THE BIDDERS FOR BLOCK 18 OF CHERUPPITTAKAVU ESTATE

EXHIBIT P9E TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF PRICE QUOTED BY THE BIDDERS FOR BLOCK 7B OF MULLUMALA ESTATE

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SAMPLE TENDER DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P10A TRUE COPY OF THE SAMPLE TENDER DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P10B TRUE COPY OF THE SAMPLE TENDER DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P10C TRUE COPY OF THE SAMPLE TENDER DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P10D TRUE COPY OF THE SAMPLE TENDER DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY 7TH RESPONDENT WP(C).No.527 OF 2021(M)

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOQ SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER AND THAT OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER REGARDING CHITHALVETTY ESTATE BLOCK CY F IN THE FIRST TENDER.

EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE BOQ SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER AND THAT OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER REGARDING CHERUPPITTAKAAVU ESTATE BLOCK 17 IN THE FIRST TENDER.

EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE BOQ SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER AND THAT OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER REGARDING CHERUPPITTAKAAVU ESTATE BLOCK 18 IN THE FIRST TENDER.

EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILS AND MINUTES OF THE FIRST TENDER COUNTER SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MANAGING DIRECTOR ON 22.12.2020.

EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT STAR PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES.

EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILS AND MINUTES OF THE FIRST TENDER COUNTER-SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MANAGING DIRECTOR ON 5.1.2021.