Philip Thomas vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8265 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
        FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

           PHILIP THOMAS,
           AGED 64 YEARS
           S/O. LATE P.M. THOMAS, PUTHENKAYYALAYIL HOUSE,
           KOTTANADU P.O, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
           PIN 689 678.
           BY ADVS.
           JOSEPH GEORGE
           P.A.REJIMON


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , PUBLIC
           WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
    2      EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
           PWD- BUILDING DIVISION, OFFICE OF PWD BUILDINGS
           DIVISIONS , PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PIN 689 645
    3      CHIEF ENGINEER (BUILDINGS),
           PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM
           P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O, PIN 689 645.
OTHER PRESENT:

           GP P.S.APPU


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022
                                   2

                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022

The second respondent had invited competitive

tenders for construction of a new building for the

Government Model L.P.School, Thadiyoor in

Pathanamthitta. Only four contractors, including the

petitoner, responded to the notification. From out of the

four bids, one was rejected for failure of the bidder to

upload the affidavit. Among the balance three bidders, the

petitioner quoted the lowest rate. On finding petitioner to

be the lowest qualified bidder, the second respondent

issued Ext.P4 letter, inviting the petitioner for negotiation,

pointing out that the disqualified bidder had quoted an

even lower rate.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on

Clause 2009.3 of the PWD Manual to contend that there

cannot be any insistance for negotiation, when there is

more than one qualified bidder. Pointing out these WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022

aspects, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before

the second respondent. This writ petition is filed, since the

second respondent initiated proceedings for re-tender of

the work.

3. Learned Government Pleader relied on Clause

2009.4 of the PWD Manual, providing for rejection of

tender, and conduct of re-tender or fresh tender if the PAC

exceeds the lower market rate justification estimate.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I deem it

appropriate for the second respondent to consider Ext.P5

representation filed by the petitioner and to take a decision

on merits, rather than deciding the dispute in a proceeding

under Article 226.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing

the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation

and to take a reasoned decision thereon, after affording

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022

The decision as directed above shall be taken within

two weeks. The petitioner shall appear before the second

respondent on 07.07.2022 and produce a copy of the writ

petition along with certified copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK WP(C) NO. 18024 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18024 of 2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONTRACT DATA OF TENDER NO. TR/BL/2019.8689 23.2.1/2. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BID OPENING SUMMARY. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BID RANKING LIST PUBLISHED BY PWD.

Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO. D-5 8689/2019 DATED 09.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER .

Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE INVITING TENDER NO. PWD/BLDG/3762/2022-2023 DATED 31.05.2022.