Suresh G vs Kerala Water Authority
2024 Latest Caselaw 4523 Ker

Kerala High Court

Suresh G vs Kerala Water Authority on 6 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 1822 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1     SURESH G
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O.LATE P.GOPINATHAN, SUNITHA BHAVAN AVANAVANCHERRY
          VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK AVANAVANCHERRY POST - ,
          ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
    2     SIVAPRASAD S
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O.LATE SOMAN PARAMESWARAN KRISHNAMOORTHIVILA VEEDU
          THATTAMALA POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691020
          BY ADVS.
          GEEN T.MATHEW
          S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)


RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
          JALABHAVAN VELLAYAMBALAM, PMG JN POST - 695 033
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS
          MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALABHAVAN
          VELLAYAMBALAM, PMG JN POST,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
    2     THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
          PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
          OBSERVATORY HILLS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 695033


          SRI. GEORGIE JOHNY, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1822 OF 2024              2

                             JUDGMENT

Sri.Ramesh Babu, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Geen

T.Mathew - appearing for the petitioners, submitted that his clients

have been constrained to approach this Court impugning Exts.P3 and

P5 because, it virtually disqualifies the 1st petitioner from continuing

further with the tendering processes notified by the Kerala Water

Authority (KWA), solely on the ground that the financial credentials

submitted by the 1st petitioner, while bidding in favour of a Private

Limited Company - wherein he is a partner, is irregular and improper.

The learned senior counsel submitted that, when the 1st petitioner is

admittedly a partner of the company, his experience and credentials

can be used by them, which has been done along with their bid

application; and therefore, that Exts.P3 and P5 are untenable and

beyond law. He thus prayed that Exts.P3 and P5 be quashed.

2. Sri.Georgie Johny - learned standing counsel for the KWA,

however, submitted that Exts.P3 and P5 are only a notice asking the

petitioners to show cause why the bid of the company be not rejected

because they rely on the experience and credentials of the 1st

petitioner, which could not have been used by the former. He

submitted that if the petitioners are able to explain the notice cogently

based on Ext.P4 explanation - which they have already submitted, the

Superintending Engineer is willing to hear them and take a final

decision thereon without any avoidable delay.

3. Sri.Ramesh Babu - learned senior counsel, in reply, submitted

that, if the Superintending Engineer is willing to consider Ext.P4

dispassionately, his clients would not stand in the way of this writ

petition being ordered on such terms; however, praying that until such

time, the tender processes be not allowed to be finalised.

4. No doubt, if the petitioners are able to explain cogently to

Exts.P3 and P5, 'KWA' must consider if the bid of the company in

question requires to be rejected. Obviously, this is a matter for the

Superintending Engineer to consider appropriately and it would not be

prudent for this Court to enter into the controversy at this stage, since

it would certainly involve assessment of facts and documents, which is

proscribed while this Court acts under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct

the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 explanation of the petitioners and

enter into a final decision thereon, after hearing them, as also the

authorised representative of the company in question; thus culminating

in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore is done and the

resultant order communicated to the petitioners and to the company in

question, all further action pursuant to the bid notification shall stand

deferred, and will be taken forward only depending upon the decision

to be so entered into.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/8.2

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1822/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER NO.

142/2023- 24/KWA/PHC/DI/TVM VOLUME 1 DATED 21.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER NO.142/2023-24/KWA/PHC/DI/TVM VOLUME 2 SCOPE OF WORK DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH THE BID SUBMISION CONFIRMATION Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 04.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1 ST PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.01.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06.01.2024 ISSUED FROM EMAIL ID [email protected] TO THE 1 ST PETITIONER