All Kerala Government ... vs Kodikulam Grama Panchayat
2021 Latest Caselaw 1582 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.15569 OF 2020(U)


PETITIONERS:

      1        ALL KERALA GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
               REGISTER NO.88/1985, THODUPUZHA TALUK COMMITTEE
               REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BOBY JOSE, S/O.JOSE,
               THAZHETHUVEETTIL, NAKAPUZHA P.O.,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 608.

      2        DOMINIC MATHEW
               S/O.MATHEW, MULLAKARIYIL HOUSE, OTTALLOOR P.O.,
               KARIMKUNNAM, THODUPUZHA,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 586.

      3        INDRAJITH KRISHNA
               S/O.C.K.KRISHNAN, CHACKALACKAL HOUSE,
               MULAPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 581.

      4        SOJAN N.C.
               S/O.CHACKO, NEDUMKALLEL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O.,
               THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 605.

      5        M.M.SULAIMAN
               S/O.MOHAMMED, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR,
               THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 581.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
               SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
               SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
               SMT.V.T.LITHA
               SMT.K.R.MONISHA
               SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KODIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KODIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI
               DISTRICT - 685 582.

      2        THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
               LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
               KODIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KODIKULAM P.O.,
 WP(C).No.15569 OF 2020(U)

                            2

          IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 582.

     3    JOSE MANCHERIYIL
          PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEMBER, WARD NO.12,
          MANCHERIYIL HOUSE, EAST KODIKULAM P.O.,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 582.

     4    ANSHAD K.A.
          PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEMBER, WARD NO.7,
          KUTTIYANIKAL HOUSE, EAST KODIKULAM P.O.,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 582.

     5    SHAJI THANKAPPAN
          PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEMBER, WARD NO.5,
          KUTTICHERIYIL HOUSE, EAST KODIKULAM P.O.,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 582.

          R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
          R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP

          SMT. G. RANJITA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.15569 OF 2020(U)

                                   3



                   W.P.(C) No.15569 of 2020
             -----------------------------------------------


                          JUDGMENT

First petitioner is an association of contractors and

petitioners 2 to 5 are members of the first petitioner

association. As per Ext.P1 notice, tenders have been invited

by the second respondent for execution of 21 civil works of the

first respondent Panchayat. Petitioners 2 to 5 have submitted

tenders for Work Nos.4, 7, 19 and 11 respectively in Ext.P1

notice. Among the petitioners, the fourth petitioner offered to

execute the work at the estimate amount and petitioners 2, 3

and 5 offered to execute their respective works below the

estimate amounts. The tenders submitted by petitioners 2 to 5

were the lowest in respect of the aforesaid four works. The

matter relating to the acceptance of the tenders received

pursuant to Ext.P1 notice was though discussed in the meeting

of the Committee of the Panchayat held on 12.06.2020, the

decision in the matter was deferred. Later, on 01.07.2020, the

Committee of the Panchayat has decided to re-tender all the WP(C).No.15569 OF 2020(U)

works holding that the tenders received were not competitive.

Ext.P5 is the decision taken by the Panchayat in this regard.

Ext.P5 is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second

respondent.

3. On 04.11.2020, this Court passed an interim

order directing the Panchayat to refrain from awarding the

works pursuant to the re-tender ordered as per the impugned

decision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners

pointed out that the Panchayat has accepted the lowest

tenders received in response to Ext.P2 invitation made

subsequent to Ext.P1 invitation and therefore, the decision of

the Panchayat to re-tender the works covered by Ext.P1

invitation is illegal and arbitrary.

5. When the Panchayat invites tenders for

execution of works, it is obligatory for them to ensure that

competitive tenders are received, and if the Panchayat finds

that the tenders received pursuant to the invitation are not

competitive, they are certainly within its powers to order re- WP(C).No.15569 OF 2020(U)

tender for the works, in public interest. The minutes of the

meeting of the Committee of the Panchayat held on

12.06.2020 indicates that the Finance Standing Committee of

the Panchayat considered the tenders received pursuant to

Ext.P1 invitation and recommended to the Committee to re-

tender the works holding that the tenders are not competitive.

Ext.P3 is the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of the

Panchayat held on 12.06.2020. Ext.P3 minutes also indicates

that the rates quoted by the contractors in the tenders

submitted pursuant to Ext.P1 were exorbitant when compared

to the rates quoted by the contractors for similar works earlier.

The materials on record indicate that it is after due

deliberation that the Committee of the Panchayat has decided

to re-tender the works. Of course, if such a decision is vitiated

by malice, the same can be challenged. Though the petitioners

would state in ground - D of the writ petition that the

impugned decision is vitiated by malice, no material,

whatsoever, is placed on record to establish the same. That

apart, the statement filed by the Government Pleader on

behalf of the second respondent, on an oral direction issued by

this Court, reveals that the Panchayat has received far better WP(C).No.15569 OF 2020(U)

offers in the re-tender process.

In the said view of the matter, I do no find any

merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

PV WP(C).No.15569 OF 2020(U)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF TENDER NOTICE NO.01/2020/AE/LSGD/KDLM ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18/05/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TENDER NOTICE NO.02/2020/AE/LSGD/KDLM ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/06/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 12/06/2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 01/07/2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF DECISION IN AGENDA NO.26/1 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 01/07/2020.