Kerala High Court
M/S. Virutcha Private Limited vs Kerala State Beverages ... on 21 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1806 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S. VIRUTCHA PRIVATE LIMITED,
0
14/18, KASI VISWANATHAN STREET, SHEVAPET, SALEM-636002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
DEEPU THANKAN
SMT.UMMUL FIDA
SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION (M AND M) LTD.
BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 ADDL R2. KERALA STATE IT MISSION,
ICT CAMPUS, VELLAYAMBALAM-695 010, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
(ADDL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29-01-2021 IN IA
NO.1/2021 IN THE WP(C)1806/2021)
SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL, BEVCO
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA.B
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.05.2021,
THE COURT ON 21.05.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.ASHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(c) No.1806 of 2021-A
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2021
JUDGMENT
Ext.P6 letter of 1st respondent, rejecting the bid submitted by the petitioner, is under challenge in this
Writ Petition.
2. As per Ext.P1 notification dated 20.05.2020, the 1st respondent Corporation invited tenders
from manufacturers of IMFL, Wines and Beer owning a distillery/brewery/blending unit/winery, for
registration of manufacturers for sale of IMFL, Wine and Beer on rate contract. The last date for submission
of bid, which was initially fixed as 19.06.2020, was extended till 03.07.2020. The petitioner claims that it
submitted its bid on 10.6.2020 along with Ext.P2 letter and received Ext.P3 confirmation for the same and
that Ext P4 receipt was issued in acknowledgment of sealed cover containing the hard copies of the same.
However as per Ext.P6 letter dated 12.01.2021 the respondent Corporation rejected the offer on the ground
that the petitioner did not submit FOD rates in their price offer (BOQ) for the 30 brands submitted in the e-
tender portal. According to the petitioner, it had submitted all the documents including the price offer
(BOQ) with FOD rates. Relying on Exts.P3 details from the website, the petitioner claims that it had
submitted its bid along with FOD rates as Ext.P3 would show that the respondent had received the files
V6_BOQ_IMFL_2020.xis containing the list of brands (BOQ) of IMFL quoted for sale along with FOD rate
for 2020-21 having a file size of 203.00 KB. The file hash is also given therein. The petitioner further points
out that in Ext.P6 letter the respondent stated that FOD rates are not given for the 30 brands/pack sizes
submitted in the e-tender portal; whereas the petitioner had submitted its price offer only for 12 brands as
contained in Ext.P5. The contention of the petitioner is that once the respondent has received the file with
203 KB required for uploading the price offer with FOD rates, it cannot be said that there is any fault on the
part of the petitioner and therefore the rejection is illegal. It is also submitted that since the tender is for rates
contract, there will not be any difficulty for the respondent in accepting the tender submitted by the petitioner
as all those who are participating in the tender would be selected in case the rates are agreeable. It is also
stated that the petitioner has been a contractor based on similar tenders invited by the respondent Corporation
even during the last year and that no harm would be caused to respondents or anybody else in case the bid
submitted by it is accepted.
3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that while evaluating the uploaded
documents in the e-tender portal, petitioner was found to have uploaded the BOQ files with no records or
values. As per tender conditions, a bid with invalid BOQ cannot be considered for further processing. It is
further stated that even if the BOQ is uploaded without rates or value, the file size would be the same, as the
file contains the forms with rows for the bidder to fill the details. According to them the bid can be accepted
only if it is submitted in conformity with conditions in Ext P1 tender notification and no relaxation is
permissible even in rate contracts or consideration with respect to human errors as claimed by the petitioner.
It is also stated that the reference to 30 brands was a typographical error occurred in Ext P6.
4. Heard Sri Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naveen, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the
additional 2nd respondent.
5. The claim of the petitioner that FOD rates were provided in the BOQ is stoutly denied by the
1st respondent. The petitioner does not have a case that the respondent Corporation is having any deliberate
intention to exclude the petitioner from the tender proceedings. The rejection is on the ground that the FOD
rates are not available in the documents uploaded by the petitioner. Just because the size of the file is shown
to be of 203 KB, this Court will not be in a position to determine whether it was inclusive of FOD rate or
anything else when the respondent has stated that FOD rates were not given. The mere fact that Ext.P6
mentioned about FOD rates of 30 brands, instead of 12 brands, also would not help the petitioner. When
conditions are fixed in the tender notification, the respondents are expected to follow that. In the absence of
any plea of malafides as against the 1 st respondent, I do not find it necessary even to direct the 2 nd respondent
to look into these aspects as to whether the 203 KB file size was in respect of FOD rates or otherwise. There
is no material before this court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the FOD rates were furnished by the
petitioner in the bid submitted online, when there is a factual dispute.
In the above circumstances, I find that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
rtr/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1806/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
NO.KSBC/MD/140/LIQ/2020-2021 DATED 20.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG
WITH THE TENDER DATED 10.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER BID SUBMISSION
CONFIRMATION DATED 12.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT ON ACCEPTING THE SEALED COVER LETTER
DATED 24.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FOD RATES IN THEIR PRICE OFFER
(BILL ON QUANTITY) FOR THE 12 BRANDS SUBMITTED IN
THE TENDER PORTAL BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR
2020-2021.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.01.2021
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.EXC/4017/2020/XC1/L.Dis. DATED 1-2-2021 ISSUED
BY THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER.
