Mansoorali vs The Administrator
2023 Latest Caselaw 2906 Ker

W.P.(C). No.18469 of 2022              1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
       MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944
                            WP(C) NO. 18469 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              MANSOORALI
              AGED 46 YEARS
              S/O SIRAJ, AGED 46, PALLIPURAM HOUSE, CHETLAT ISLAND,
              U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN- 682 554.
              BY ADV R.RAMADAS


RESPONDENTS:

      1       THE ADMINISTRATOR,
              U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI- 682 555.
      2       THE DIRECTOR OF PORT,
              SHIPPING AND AVIATION, KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP,
              PIN - 682 555.
      3       THE COLLECTOR -CUM-DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (SECRETARY
              TRANSPORT),
              U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682 555.
              BY ADV Sajith Kumar V., Standing Counsel


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C). No.18469 of 2022                  2




                                       JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2023

Petitioner is a native of Chetlat Island, Union territory of Lakshadweep. The

petitioner participated in a tender invited by the Lakshadweep Administration for the

loading/unloading, stevedoring and other works of ships owned and chartered by the

Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration for Chetlat Island and other islands

under the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as per Exhibit P1 notification.

2. The tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the Technical and

Evaluation committee duly constituted by the Lakshadweep Administration. According to

the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled as of right to execute an agreement

and proceed with the work. It is pointed out that the authorities are of the view that the

rate quoted by the petitioner is on the higher side, however, it is submitted that the

petitioner is prepared to do the work at the estimated value of contract per annum fixed

in Exhibit P1 notification. Since petitioner was not invited for negotiation, petitioner has

submitted Exhibit P4 representation before the respondents requesting to call the

petitioner for negotiation in respect of the rate quoted by him in his tender. According to

the petitioner, in Exhibit P4, petitioner has expressed his willingness to reduce the rate

quoted in Exhibit P2 tender and also stated that he is prepared to do the work at the

estimated value of contract per annum fixed in Exhibit P1 tender notification. It is the

case of the petitioner that no reply is received by the petitioner. While so, petitioner is

served with Exhibit P7 order stating that the Administration is unable to consider the

request of the petitioner and that, it has decided to accede to the decision of the

Technical Evaluation Committee to re-tender the works of Chetlat Island.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that since petitioner has been doing the same

work from 2015 onwards, there is no justification in not calling the petitioner for

negotiation even after petitioner has expressed his willingness to do the work at the

estimated value of contract fixed in the tender notification. It is in the above backdrop ,

the writ petition is filed. Various contentions are also raised with respect to the stand

adopted by the Lakshadweep Administration .

4. A detailed statement is filed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for and on

behalf of respondents, wherein among other contentions it is submitted that the Director

of Port, Shipping and Aviation, Union Territory of Lakshadweep - the 2 nd respondent,

considered Exhibit P4 after hearing the petitioner but the 2 nd respondent was

constrained to reject Exhibit P4 by Exhibit P7 order as it is highly necessary considering

the public interest to make the process more competitive and attract more bidders to

enable better competition in rates as well as service rendered. Therefore, the contention

advanced by the 2nd respondent is that since the Administration has already decided to

go for a re-tender, there is no ground made out by the petitioner, who was the sole

bidder in the tender notification.

5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner - Sri.R.Ramadas, learned Standing

Counsel for respondents - Sri.Sajith Kumar.V and perused the pleadings and materials

on record.

6. The discussion made above would make it clear that the petitioner was the sole

bidder in Exhibit P1 notification issued by the Lakshadweep Administration. Even though

petitioner has submitted Exhibit P4 representation expressing his willingness to

negotiate and reduce the price, the Administration is of the view that more competitive

bids would have to be received in order to finalise the tender proceedings. It is further

pointed out that it is in larger public interest that the administration is proposing to re-

tender the contract, especially due to the fact that the petitioner was the only bidder

and if the re-tender is floated, more competitive bids will be received by the

Administration.

7. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and I am of the

considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case of arbitrariness, mala

fides, illegality or irrationality in the decision of the Administration to re-tender the work

since the petitioner was the sole bidder in Exhibit P1 notification. In my considered view,

it is for the Administration to decide the manner in which the tender is to be finalised.

The Administration is of the opinion that if a re-tender is made, more bidders will

participate and the Administration would be in a position to tender the work in a more

feasible and effective manner thus saving and protecting the interest of the

Administration and the public at large. Moreover, as of now there is no privity of

contract by and between the petitioner and the Administration so as to be aggrieved by

any action.

In that view of the matter, I do not think the petitioner has made out any case for

interference in Exhibit P7 decision of the Administration. Writ petition fails, accordingly,

it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the

petitioner participating in the re-tender invited by the Administration.

Sd/-

                                                   SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                     JUDGE





                            APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18469/2022

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1                   TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TENDER
                             NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN FEBRUARY, 2021 BY THE
                             2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2                   TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE
                             PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE LOADING /
                             UNLOADING AND STEVEDORING AND OTHER WORKS OF
                             CARGO AND PASSENGERSHIPS IN CHETLAT ISLAND.
Exhibit P3                   TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT DATED
                             10.09.2021.
Exhibit P4                   TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                             09.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
                             THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P5                   TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2022 IN
                             W.P. (C) NO.8357/2022
Exhibit P6                   TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
                             PETITIONER DATED 24.04.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND
                             RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7                   TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2022 ISSUED
                             BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT