Kerala High Court
Joby Augustine vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37480 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
JOLLY JOSE
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.LATE T.M.JOSE, CONTRACTOR, THEKKETHERUVIL HOUSE,
MUKKUDOM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685562
BY ADVS.
BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
ARCHANA K.S.
MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
NOEL EALIAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 OMBUDSMAN
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, NEAR TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, PAINAVU,
PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603
2 KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYT
KONNATHADY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 685563
3 PROPRIETOR
M/S.NEON TECHNOLOGIES, X-1459, IDUKKI COLONY P.O.,
CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685602
4 STATE OBDUSMAN
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, 1ST FLOOR, BSNL INSPECTION QUARTERS, LAW
COLLEGE JUNCTION, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADV JOICE GEORGE
SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).39124/2023, 43255/2023, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 39124 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 JOBY AUGUSTINE
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.P.V.AUGUSTHY, PEADIKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE,
MANKUVA P.O., THELLITHODU, PIN - 685604
2 BINDHU SANTY
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O.SANTY, NIRAPPIL HOUSE, MUNIYARA P.O.,
MUNIYARA, PIN - 685571
3 SHINI SAJEEVAN
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.SAJEEVAN, CHAZHIKARA HOUSE, PANICKANKUDY P.O.,
PANICKANKUDY, PIN - 685571
4 C.K.JAYAN
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. KARUNAKARAN, CHELAPLACKAL HOUSE,
KONNATHADY P.O., KONNATHADY, PIN - 685563
5 JOBY JOSEPH
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH MATHEW, KUNNAKKATTU HOUSE,
PANICKANKUDY, PIN - 685571
6 RANI PAULSON
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.PAULSON, PULICKAL HOUSE, PARATHODE P.O.,
CHINNARNIRAPPU, PIN - 685571
7 SUMANGALA VIJAYAN
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.VIJAYAN, MUTHUKULATH HOUSE, MUKKUDOM P.O.,
KAMBILIKANDOM, PIN - 685562
8 ANEESH BALAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, THELLIPPADAVIL HOUSE, KONNATHADY P.O.,
MARAKKANAM, PIN - 685563
9 T.K.KRISHNANKUTTY
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN THAMADATHIL, MUKKUDOM P.O.,
KAMBILIKANDOM, PIN - 685562
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
3
10 SALY KURIACHAN
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.KURIACHAN, KOCHUPURACKAL, PARATHODU P.O.,
PARATHODU, PIN - 685571
11 ACHAMMA JOY
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.JOY, PANAMTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, MUNIYARA P.O.,
MUNIYARA, PIN - 685571
12 MERCY JOSE
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.JOSE MC, MLAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PONMUDY P.O.,
PONMUDY, PIN - 685563
13 JESSY SIBY
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.SIBY, KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE, KONNATHADY P.O., KAKKA
CITY, PIN - 685563
14 AMBILY SALEELAN
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O.SALEELAN NELLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, MUKKUDAM P.O.,
MUTHIRAPPUZHA, PIN - 685562
15 T.P. MALKA
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.T.M.PETER, THYVULLATHIL HOUSE, PARATHODE, IDUKKI
P.O.,, PIN - 685571
16 UNNIKRISHNAN P.K.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PULPARAYIL, MUKKADAM P.O. 5TH MILE,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685562
17 VICTORIA WILSON
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. WILSON PAZHAYAVEETTIL, KONNATHADY P.O. IDUKKI,
PIN - 685563
18 REJIMON THOMAS
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, IDIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, MULLARIKKADY P.O.,
PERINJANKUTTY, PIN - 685571
BY ADVS.
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
4
2 THE KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
THE KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI, PIN - 685563
3 THE PRESIDENT
KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI, PIN - 685563
4 THE SECRETARY
KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI, PIN - 685563
5 M/S. NEON TECHNOLOGIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
RENJITH P LUKOSE @ LUKOSE PONNAMBEL RENJITH,
X-1459, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., CHERUTHONY,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685602
6 JOLLY JOSE
S/O.JOSE, THEKKETHERUVIL HOUSE, MUKKUDOM P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685562
BY ADVS.
JOICE GEORGE
BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
ARCHANA K.S.(K/000243/2018)
MOHAMMED SHAFI.K(K/573/2016)
NOEL EALIAS(K/001630/2022)
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).37480/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 43255 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KONNATHADI P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685563
2 THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF THE KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KONNATHADY P.O.IDUKKI, PIN - 685563
3 THE SECRETARY
KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE KONNATHADY
GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KONNATHADY P.O.,IDUKKI,
PIN - 685563
BY ADV JOICE GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 M/S.NEON TECHNOLOGIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
RENJITH P LUKOSE @ LUKOSE PONNAMBEL RENJITH, X-1459,
IDUKKI COLONY P.O., CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI, PIN - 685602
3 JOLLY JOSE
S/O.JOSE, THEKKETHERUVIL HOUSE, MUKKUDOM P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685562
BY ADVS.
BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
ARCHANA K.S.(K/000243/2018)
MOHAMMED SHAFI.K(K/573/2016)
NOEL EALIAS(K/001630/2022)
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).37480/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
6
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.37480/2023, 39124/2023,
43255/2023]
I am considering these three writ petitions together because the
inter-lying factual assertions are similar, if not analogous; while the
prayers sought for are complementary to each other.
2. Among the afore writ petitions, W.P(C)No.43255 of 2023 has
been filed by the Konnathady Grama Panchayat; while
W.P(C)No.39124 of 2023 has been filed by its members. The third writ
petition, namely W.P(C)No.37480 of 2023, has been filed by a
contractor by name Sri.Jolly Jose; and all the petitioners impugn the
award issued by the Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme dated 31.05.2023, confirmed by the
subsequent order of the State Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme dated 04.10.2023.
3. The controversy in these cases have its genesis in the fact that
the Konnathady Grama Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Panchayat' for short) settled a tender process with respect to one of
its works in favour of the petitioner in W.P(C)No.37480 of 2023 - who
will hereinafter be referred by his name Sri.Jolly Jose - overlooking a
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
lower tender which was furnished by M/s.Neon Technologies, which
has been arrayed as a respondent in all these cases and which will
hereinafter be referred to by its name.
4. The explanation of the Panchayat and its members to the
proceedings initiated by the Ombudsman at the instance of M/s.Neon
Technologies, was that since the said entity did not have a Contractors
Licence, as required under the tender notification, they were found to
be disqualified; and that the next bid, namely that of Sri.Jolly Jose, for
a slightly higher amount, has been accepted. However, the
Ombudsman did not accept this and found that the alleged loss caused
to the exchequer - which is the difference between the two bids - to a
sum of Rs.5,94,211/-, must be recovered from the members of the
Panchayat and that it was so ordered. This order of the Ombudsman
was taken in Appeal before the State Ombudsman, which was also
confirmed it, as per its order dated 04.10.2023.
5. The petitioners contend, through their respective learned
counsel, that both the Ombudsman and State Ombudsman has acted
in excess of jurisdiction, in having ordered the cancellation of the
contract Awarded by the Panchayat in favour of Sri.Jolly Jose, even
after having found that, as per the tender notification, a Contractors
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
Licence was a prerequisite for any tender to have been accepted. They
point out that the impugned order of the Ombudsman, in fact, records
thus specifically, but still goes on to say that, notwithstanding such a
stipulation and since such a condition is not authorized by the
applicable Government Orders, the Panchayat is bound to return the
money that was lost on account of grant of contract to Sri.Jolly Jose.
They, thus pray that the impugned orders of both the Ombudsman and
the State Ombudsman be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader appearing for
the State of Kerala in W.P(C)No.39124 of 2023 and W.P(C)No.43255
of 2023, submitted that though his client does not have any specific
comment to make in the controversy projected, the fact remains that it
is incumbent upon the Panchayat to Award contracts adverting to all
relevant aspects, the primary of which is the quantum of the quote. He
submitted that, normally, when a quote which is higher than the other
is preferred, there should be valid reasons; and therefore, left it to this
Court to issue appropriate orders.
7. I have examined the impugned Awards on the touchstone of
the various materials on record and the submissions made by the
parties before this Court.
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
8. I must, however, record that, in spite of valid service of
summons, M/s.Neon Technologies have refused to appear, nor are
they represented through counsel. I am, therefore, constrained to
dispose of these matters in their absence.
9. The order of the Ombudsman, which is the first one, deals
with the issues in detail and then finds that the incorporation of a
condition, that the bidders must have a Contractors Licence is not
authorized by the Government Orders, but by the "Procurement
Manual". It is also unreservedly found by it that the tender notification
- a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P1 along with
W.P(C)No.39124 of 2023 - contains a specific condition that the
bidders must have a Contractors Licence, but still went on to find that,
this by itself, would not authorize the Panchayat to disregard a lower
tender and that they were in error in having granted it in favour of
Sri.Jolly Jose, who admittedly quoted Rs.6,16,190/- in excess. It then
went on to hold that, after reducing the negotiated figure of
Rs.21,979/-, the final figure of Rs.5,94,211/- requires to be suffered by
the members of the Panchayat, who had taken the decision to Award
the contract in favour of Sri.Jolly Jose; and went on to finally order so.
10. This was challenged before the State Ombudsman, who also
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
went on through all the facts in detail and evaluated the statement of
the parties, as is evident from its order; but proceeded to confirm the
order of the Ombudsman, saying that, if the impugned condition, that
every bidder must have a Contractors Licence is to be accepted, then
it is only Sri.Jolly Jose who would have been found qualified and that
this has been done for confutative reasons. It thus proceeded to affirm
the order of the Ombudsman, thus permitting the cancellation of the
contract in favour of Sri.Jolly Jose, with corollary orders to proceed
against the Secretary and the members of the Panchayat who had
participated in the tendering process.
11. When one examines the impugned orders, it becomes
indubitable that, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the tender notification certainly had a condition that every bidder
must have a Contractors Licence. If M/s.Neon Technologies had been
aggrieved by this, they ought to have challenged the same, but they
did not do so and went on to place their bid in pursuance thereto.
Obviously, when the tender notification had this condition - whether it
be right or wrong - the Panchayat could have only acted as per it and
they did so, thus disqualifying M/s.Neon Technologies, since
admittedly, they did not have such a Licence.
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
12. That said, the acme question in these cases is not whether
the tender notification is in error, in as much as that the Panchayat
had incorporated a condition that every bidder must have a
Contractors Licence or whether this was incorporated deliberately to
help Sri.Jolly Jose, but if the Ombudsman could have set aside the
contract awarded to the said person holding so.
13. As I have said above, the tender notification has never been
challenged and as matters even now stand, the same continues to hold
even now. Normally, therefore, the Panchayat could not have acted
against it; and had they done so, perhaps, a person like Sri.Jolly Jose
could have approached this Court on that ground and have the entire
tendering process set aside.
14. The question whether the tender notification was incorrect
was not something that was open to be evaluated by the Ombudsman,
or by the State Ombudsman, because that was not an issue impelled
before them. They were only expected to verify whether there was any
malpractice or corruption in the award of the Tender; and they were
guided by the sole fact that the tender of Sri.Jolly Jose was nearly Rs.6
Lakhs in excess of that quoted by M/s.Neon Technologies. However,
this by itself, cannot be a factor to find conclusively that the award of
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
tender is vitiated because, as I have already stated above, normally,
the Panchayat could have acted only as per the tender notification and
not otherwise. One fails to understand why M/s.Neon Technologies did
not challenge the tender notification which, perhaps, it may have been
able to do viably; but in the absence of the same, their challenge
before the Ombudsman against the tender awarded in favour of
Sri.Jolly Jose cannot be countenanced.
In the afore circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed and
the impugned orders of the Ombudsman and that of the State
Ombudsman, are set aside.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/3.2
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37480/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENCE OF
THE PETITIONER VALID UP TO 31.3.2023,
ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
MINOR IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION FEE -
RENEWAL FORM, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.13/2023/PWD DATED
28.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.22/2023/PWD DATED
18.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION
CARD OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2.5.2023,
VALID UP TO 31.3.2026 ISSUED BY THE
SUPERINTENDING, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED
10.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DETAILS DATED
10.2.2023 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.2.2023
FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.2.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE
TO EXT.P8.
Exhibit P8(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 25.6.2020 IN W.P.(C)
NO.1989/2020.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 2.3.2023
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT
AND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.3.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF 53 ITEMS OF
MATERIALS, ENCLOSED ALONG WITH EXT.P10.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 17.3.2023 IN W.P.(C)
NO.8013/2023.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
30.3.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
14.3.2023 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
W.P.(C) NO.8103/2023.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 10.4.2023 IN W.P.(C)
NO.8013/2023.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 13.4.2023 IN W.A. NO.805/2023.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.4.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
18.4.2023 (EXCEPT WITH THE DOCUMENTS)
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON
20.4.2023.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
KERALA PWD MANUAL REVISED EDITION 2012
(CLAUSE 2009.3).
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD
NO.OMB.56/MGNREGA/IDK/2023 DATED 31.5.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.A4-597/22
DATED 5.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO
REMIT AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,94,211/-, WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% WITH EFFECT
FROM 2.3.2023, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT
OF EXT.P20.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 7.7.2023 IN W.P.(C)
NO.22027/2023.
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21.7.2023
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT, EXCEPT WITH THE DOCUMENTS.
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
20.6.2023 FILED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.AAK/MGNREGS/AWARD/131/2023 DATED
4.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39124/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION
DATED 10.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT-PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE BID DOCUMENTS TO BE
UPLOADED ALONG WITH THE TENDER
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2023 IN
W.P.(C) NO. 8013/2023 BEFORE THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.
OMB.6/MGNREGA/IDK/2023 DATED 31.5.2023
PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MGNREGS,
IDUKKI DISTRICT
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
AAK/MGNREGS/AWARD/131/2023 DATED 4.10.2023
PASSED BY STATE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(OMBUDS PERSON) FOR MGNREGS, KERALA
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF CLAUSE 8
AND 9 OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES ON
OMBUDSPERSON AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Exhibit P7 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2023 IN
WP(C) NO.37480/2023 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
WP(C)NO.37480/2023 & Con.Cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43255/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED
10.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE BID DOCUMENTS TO BE UPLOADED
ALONG WITH THE TENDER
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2023 IN
W.P.(C) NO. 8013/2023 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE AWARD NO.
OMB.6/MGNREGA/IDK/2023 DATED 31.5.2023
PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MGNREGS,
IDUKKI DISTRICT
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
AAK/MGNREGS/AWARD/131/2023 DATED 4.10.2023
PASSED BY STATE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(OMBUDS PERSON) FOR MGNREGS, KERALA
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF CLAUSE 8
AND 9 OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES ON
OMBUDSPERSON AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2023 IN
WP(C) NO.37480/2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-11-2023 IN
WP(C) NO39124 OF 2023 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT
