AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.
Heard learned Senior counsel Sri. K.R.B. Kaimal arguing for the appellant, Sri. George Poonthottam appearing for the 4th respondent and Special Government Pleader, Smt. Girija Gopal representing State and other Departments. The appellant, claiming to be a Class A contractor contends that he has better experience in executing several Central and State Government contract works for last 13 years, approached the learned Single Judge seeking the following reliefs:
a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to extend the time for e-tendering the pre-qualification and financial bid documents of the work notified in Ext. P4 for a further period of one week from 07.03.2012;
b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to accept and consider the full pre-qualification document produced pursuant to Ext. P4 notification for executing the contract work of "PROVIDING BM & BC IN ALAPPUZHA TOWN ROADS-ARYAD-MANDROLIGHT ROAD AND THATHAMPALLY ROAD" by extending the time for opening the tender for a minimum period of one week from 12.03.2012;
c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the full pre-qualification document to be submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P4 notification and not to reject the petitioner''s pre-qualification and financial bid documents only on the ground that, his full pre-qualification tender documents could not reach the 3rd respondent''s office before 4 p.m. on 07.03.2012; and
d) to pass such other and further orders as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The entire dispute pertains to the tenders invited for executing a work of "Providing BM & BC in Alappuzha Town Roads - Aryad-Mandrolight Road and Thathampally Road" at a cost of about Rs. 3 Crores. The applications had to be submitted through Website before 4 p.m. on 07.03.2012. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, as the system was not serving at the office of the respondent authorities properly, he could not access through e-tender and approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6074 of 2012 with a prayer to extend the time for submitting the tender for a further period of one week from 07.03.2012 and seeking a direction not to reject his pre-qualification and financial bid documents only on that count, i.e. not filing the e-tender application within the time prescribed.
Apparently, apart from the appellant/writ petitioner only the 4th respondent seems to be the other applicant. There were several interim orders during the pendency of the writ petition, i.e., 12.03.2012, 21.03.2012 and 02.04.2012. However, the appellant was directed to submit technical bid documents manually as per interim order dated 21.03.2012. However, both the appellant and 4th respondent were declared as pre-qualified but the difference is, with the intervention of the Court the appellant was declared as pre-qualified for the work in question. This is subject to establishing the fact that the appellant could not electrically transmit his tender application before 4 p.m. on 07.03.2012. The material brought on record indicated that there was no difficulty whatsoever with the electronic system to receive the e-tender application of the appellant. Therefore the learned Judge felt that the appellant has not complied with the direction in the tender notification and his application need not be considered, even if he was declared as pre-qualified for the work in question. During the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application came to be filed by the appellant questioning the decision of the authorities declaring the 4th respondent as pre-qualified for the work in question. The learned Judge did not allow the said amendment and we are of the opinion, he was justified in not permitting the amendment or not considering the said challenge raised by the appellant. According to the appellant, there was no justification in rejecting such amendment as there was substantial amount of material available to establish that 4th respondent was not pre-qualified. As a matter of fact, the documents now brought to our notice by Mr. George Poonthottam, especially the certificate dated 24.02.2012, issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads Division), Alappuzha to show that on earlier occasion this 4th respondent had carried on the work of Allappuzha-Madhura Road from Power House Junction to East Zilla Court Junction to North Uncartable Road" as per agreement dated 18.12.2009 and the total cost of work was Rs. 1,20,24,720/-and pertaining to the very same road another block was also given to the 4th respondent by agreement dated 18.12.2009 worth about Rs. 1,16,17,375/-. Both works together would come to more than Rs. 2 Crores. Therefore, pre-qualification of 40% of the value of the present tender is complied with and it also pertains to similar nature of work, i.e. roads. This certificate of PWD Engineer clearly shows that similar work was carried on in the very same area by the 4th respondent. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, there is no justification in the contention raised by the appellant that the 4th respondent did not have pre-qualification and there was apparent error in the opinion formed by the authorities declaring that 4th respondent having pre-qualification of the work concerned. In that view of the matter, in the absence of appellant establishing that he complied with all the terms of tender notification by submitting the application within the time limit prescribed, he cannot challenge the tender issued in favour of the 4th respondent which prima facie found to be in order.
In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.