K.M. Mohammed Aslam vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7535 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
        FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 20547 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

           K.M. MOHAMMED ASLAM
           AGED 53 YEARS
           S/O. LATE K.H. MOHAMMED,
           PALLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           PONJIKKARA NORTH, KOCHI
           , PIN - 682504
           BY ADVS.
           SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
           MANOJ N.
           AJITHA APPU
           M.S.NEETHUMOL
           AADIL SHAH A.S.


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           PIN - 682031
    2      MANAGING DIRECTOR
           KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LTD.,
           UDAYA NAGAR ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM
           , PIN - 682020
OTHER PRESENT:

           GP AMMINIKUTTY K.;
           SC FOR KSINC SANTHOSH MATHEW


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20547 OF 2022
                               2



                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022

The 2nd respondent had issued Exhibit P1 notice of

request for proposal to lease out space for a bunk at the

KSINC Ferry Terminal. The petitioner participated in the

tender and quoted the highest rate. Instead of awarding the

tender in the petitioner's favour, the second respondent

invited fresh tenders as per Ext.P6. The petitioner is

aggrieved by the decision to conduct fresh tender and also

certain objectionable conditions in Exhibit P6 notification.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the attempt through Ext.P6 is to keep away the petitioner

from the tender process and to award the tender to a person

of the 2nd respondent's choice. It is pointed out that the

petitioner had quoted Rs.22,000/- for the space and none of

the other participants had quoted anywhere near the

petitioner's rate. Hence there was absolutely no impediment

in allotting the space to the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 20547 OF 2022

3. In Ext.P6 tender notification, the base rate is shown

as Rs.22,000/- and objectionable conditions like the bidder

should have a class-II or above Digital Signature Certificate

and GST registration are intended to keep away bidders like

the petitioner. The second respondent should therefore be

allotted the space based on the petitioner's bid in response to

Exhibit P1.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the second

respondent submitted that the first tender notification was

issued adopting the Swiss Challenge Method and only 14

persons had responded to the notification. It is true that the

petitioner had quoted the highest rate of Rs.22,000/-. The

highest quoted rate being much below the expected rent, the

earlier tender process is cancelled and Ext.P6 e-tender

notification issued. It is submitted that this time the second

respondent had adopted the open tender method which is

more transparent. The petitioner need not be apprehensive of

the condition that the bidder should have Digital Signature

Certificate and GST registration. It is possible to obtained a

Digital Signature Certificate in less than half-an-hour. If the WP(C) NO. 20547 OF 2022

petitioner is not having GST registration, he can file an

affidavit stating that fact and his tender will not be rejected

on that ground.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I

am of the opinion that the process now adopted by the

second respondent cannot be faulted. Even if the petitioner

has the highest bidder in the first tender process, that does

not confer him with any indefeasible right. Till the contract

is concluded, the tenderer has the right to cancel the

process. The petitioner would have a cause of action only if

the contract is finalisd in favour of a person who had quoted

lesser rate. In the instant case, the earlier process is

cancelled and e-tender, which is more transparent, has been

adopted. Moreover, the petitioner's apprehension has been

addressed by making it clear that the second respondent will

not insist for production of GST certificate and the petitioner

can submit an affidavit in lieu of the certificate. Being so,

nothing stands in the way of the petitioner from participating

the tender notified by Ext.P6.

WP(C) NO. 20547 OF 2022

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, recording

the submission made on behalf of the second respondent that

the petitioner can submit an affidavit in lieu of GST

registration.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

RK WP(C) NO. 20547 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20547/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PUBLISHED IN MALAYA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 18.04.2022.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE KSINC.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.04.2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.06.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 13.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DETAILS DATED 16.06.2022 OF THE KSINC.