Kerala High Court
Sasidharan P vs The Cochin University Of Science ... on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.27375 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER:
SASIDHARAN P.,
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. VELU, PANNIKKODAN HOUSE,
MATHANGOTTUPURAM, WANDOOR P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328
BY ADVS.
SMT.JISHY P.S.
SMT.K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O,
COCHIN, PIN-682 022
2 THE UNVIERSITY ENGINEER,
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O,
COCHIN, PIN-682 022
3 M/S. WELLNESS DIET PVT. LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
27/1660-B, SIVAPURI ROAD,
KUTTANELLOOR,
THRISSUR, PIN-680 014
4 THE REGISTRAR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O,
COCHIN, PIN-682 022
ADDL. 5 MAZIN IBRAHIM,
S/o MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDULLAH,
POONTHURUTHI HOUSE,
AKAMPADAM,
ERANHIMANGAD P.O.,
NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURAM-679 329
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
2
ADDL. 6 JISHNU C.P,
SREEPADAM HOUSE,
AREEKODE P.O.
MALAPPURAM 676369
ADDL. 7 KURIEN BIJU,
S/o T.K.BIJU,
MULAMMOOTTIL HOUSE,
SNDP LANE,
HMT COLONY 683 503
(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5-7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 11/01/2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021)
R1-2, R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.JAYASANKAR
R5 BY ADV. AMEER.K.M.
R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.J.JESNA
R5 BY ADV. SHRI.RAHMATHULLAH.M
R5 BY ADV. SMT.AISWARYA RAVIKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2021
The petitioner who claims to be the lowest
bidder in tender proceedings to run a canteen in the 1 st
respondent-University is before this Court seeking to direct
the respondents 1 and 2 to award the contract based on
Ext.P2 notification to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3
quotation.
2. The petitioner has been running the canteen in
the 1st respondent-University since the year 2016. The
respondents invited fresh tender notifications as per Ext.P2
dated 21.10.2019. According to the petitioner, the
petitioner was the lowest tenderer. The 3 rd respondent was
however selected and awarded the contract. The
petitioner would submit that, this is highly illegal and
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
arbitrary. The University being a Statutory Authority should
have gone by merits and should have awarded the tender
to the lowest tenderer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner was the lowest tenderer satisfying all
conditions stipulated in the notification and has been
running the canteen successfully from the year 2016
without any complaints from any quarters. The petitioner
has invested huge amounts to run the canteen. Even
during the covid lock-down period, petitioner has been
maintaining the staff and canteen, which has caused
considerable financial burden on the petitioner.
4. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 in
awarding the contract to the 3rd respondent, without holding
any discussion with the petitioner or any other tenderers is
highly arbitrary. The action is motivated and is at the
behest of certain persons who wanted to oust the
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
petitioner.
5. The respondents 1 and 4 filed a counter affidavit
in the matter and resisted the writ petition. The
respondents 1 and 4 stated that on 20.07.2019, the
Syndicate of the University resolved to renew the
agreement with the petitioner for 6 months and also
resolved to re-tender the selection of contractor for running
the canteen, as per Ext.R1(b). Four tenderers participated.
The petitioner was the lowest tender. But the University
had difficulty in accepting the tender of the petitioner even
though the petitioner quoted the lowest rate for food items.
The canteen committee expressed objection in awarding
the contract to the petitioner as there were complaints
about the functioning and maintenance of the canteen by
the petitioner. The students representatives also invited
attention to the problems faced by the students, using the
canteen.
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
6. As is evident from Ext.R1(c) the canteen
committee came to the conclusion that a sub committee
should be constituted to visit the canteen run by the
tenderers for conducting a study. Accordingly the sub
committee submitted a report. The canteen committee at
its meeting held on 22.07.2020 considered the report of the
sub committee. The canteen committee found that the
rates for food items offered by the 3 rd respondent were
reasonable. Accordingly it was decided to award the
contract to the 3rd respondent.
7. The learned Standing Counsel would further
submit that the Syndicate meeting held on 07.05.2020
considered the matter and gave approval to the proposal.
Consequently Ext.R1(e) agreement was entered into with
the 3rd respondent.
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents 1 and 4 further submitted that the petitioner
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
was a defaulter in payment of dues to the University.
Letters were sent to the petitioner directing to pay an
amount of Rs.1,08,077/- as water and electricity charges
due from December 2019. However the amount was not
paid. The petitioner was directed to vacate the canteen
and return key on 31.05.2020. That was also not done.
The Standing Counsel further pointed out that as per the
records maintained by the University a sum of
Rs.1,98,015/- is due to the University from the petitioner as
on 23.11.2015. It was in these circumstances that the
University decided to dispense with the service of the
petitioner and award the contract to the 3rd respondent.
9. The additional respondents 5 to 7 pointed out
that the price quoted by the 3rd respondent is exorbitant
and most of the students in the University would not be
able to have their food due to the exorbitant price quoted
by the 3rd respondent. This is a matter this Court should
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
considered while deciding the issue.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 4, the
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned
counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7.
11. It is a settled proposition of law that power of
judicial review in the matter of award of contract should be
exercised by this Court taking note of the special features
of the contract. In the present case, the award of contract
is in respect of a canteen in an educational institution. The
respondents 1 and 4 received complaints about the
running of the canteen by the petitioner.
12. The petitioner was a defaulter to the University
also. The petitioner has been functioning the canteen from
the year 2016. The University found that the service
provided by the petitioner are unsatisfactory. In such
circumstances even though the petitioner is the lowest
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
tenderer, the University can opt alternative contractors for
award of tender in view of the complaints raised against
the petitioner. The judgments of the Honourable Apex
Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [2007 14
SCC 517] and Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr v.
Northeast Frontier Railway [2014 3SCC 760] would
support the contentions of the respondents 1 and 4.
In view of the above, this Court finds no ground
to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents 1
and 4. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19-07-2016
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION
DATED 21-10-2019
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION RATES
SUBMITTED IN THE TENDER CONDUCTED ON
7-11-2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO
THE PETITIOENR DATED 18-03-2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
18630/2020 DATED 02-11-2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC 18630/2020
ALONG WITH DOCUEMNTS
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
REGISTRAR DATED 22-05-2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
06.08.2016
EXHIBIT R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON
20.07.2019.
EXHIBIT R1 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE CANTEEN COMMITTEE
HELD ON 03.02.2020
EXHIBIT R1 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED
27.02.2020 OF THE MEETING OF THE
WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)
CANTEEN COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT R1 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT EXECUTED
ON 22.07.2020 BY M/S WELLNESS DIET
PVT. LTD. WITH THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R1 (F) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
23.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 (G) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
07.05.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 (H) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
28.05.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 (I) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
31.10.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 (J) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
09.01.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 (K) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.UEU/ACCTS/1108/MAIN
CANTEEN/2019/20 DATED 27.05.2020
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 (L) TRUE COPY OF THE
U.O.No.CUSAT/UEU(ACCTS).A2/1660/2020
DATED 29.07.2020.
EXHIBIT R1 (M) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
No.UEU/ACCTS./1108/MAIN DATED
23.11.2020
EXHIBIT R1 (N) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ENVELOP.
