Kerala High Court
K.P. Joy vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 466 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
K.P. JOY
AGED 53 YEARS
CONTRACTOR,KOORANKALLOOKKARAN
HOUSE,PEECHANIKKADU,PULIYANAM.P.O,ANGAMALY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SRI.T.K.BIJU MANJINIKARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS &
BRIDGES),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BRIDGES),CENTRAL
CIRCLE,ALUVA-683101.
SRI.JOBY JOSEPH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.466 of 2013
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking
the following reliefs:
i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P7;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents
to accept the pre qualification bid as well as price bid
submitted by the petitioner and to open the price bid
submitted by the petitioner and to award the work
based upon the competitive rate;
iii. issue any appropriate writ, order or direction
declaring that petitioner is duly qualified in terms of
experience contemplated in Ext.P3 notification and
hence the rejection of his tender as per Ext.P7 was
illegal and arbitrary;
iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents
to provide weightage to the quantum of similar work
executed within last 5 years and not for the rate
involved in the said work, as a relevant criteria for
determining the experience criteria of the contractor
and declare that the weightage given to the rate rather
than the quantity of work in Ext.P3 tender notification
W.P.(C) No.466 of 2013
is void ab-initio and hence unsustainable;
v. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd
respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8
representation, forthwith
vi. issue any such other writ, order or direction, as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, fair and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
The subject issue relates to the illegal rejection of
the tender submitted by the petitioner in respect of a
contract invited in the year 2013. The matter was
pending before this Court without securing any interim
orders. Now nine years have elapsed and I do not think
anything survives to be adjudicated in this writ petition
at this belated stage. The writ petition has become
infructous, dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
AP
W.P.(C) No.466 of 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 466/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF SOME OF THE
WORKS EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
DATED 22.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF
RECONSTRUCTION OF PULATHERA BRIDGE AT KM
2/00 OF KIZHUTHANI-KARALAM ROAD IN TRICHUR
DISTRICT, WORTH RS.4,81,93,39/-.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER
DATED 26.11.2012 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
FACING SHEET OF TENDER NO,PQ10/SECCA/2012-
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SCHEDULE OF WORK INVOLVED IN EXT.P3
NOTIFICATION.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SCHEDULE F WORK INVOLVED IN TENDER NO.PQ
67/SECCA/2009-10.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
02.01.2013 OF THE 3RD RE.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02.01.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
