K.M. Mohammed Aslam vs State Of Kerala

V.G.Arun, J

The 2nd respondent had issued Exhibit P1 notice of request for proposal to lease out space for a bunk at the KSINC Ferry Terminal. The petitioner participated in the tender and quoted the highest rate. Instead of awarding the tender in the petitioner's favour, the second respondent invited fresh tenders as per Ext.P6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision to conduct fresh tender and also certain objectionable conditions in Exhibit P6 notification.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the attempt through Ext.P6 is to keep away the petitioner from the tender process and to award the tender to a person of the 2nd respondent's choice. It is pointed out that the petitioner had quoted Rs.22,000/- for the space and none of the other participants had quoted anywhere near the petitioner’s rate. Hence there was absolutely no impediment in allotting the space to the petitioner.

In Ext.P6 tender notification, the base rate is shown as Rs.22,000/- and objectionable conditions like the bidder should have a class-II or above Digital Signature Certificate and GST registration are intended to keep away bidders like the petitioner. The second respondent should therefore be allotted the space based on the petitioner's bid in response to Exhibit P1.

Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the first tender notification was issued adopting the Swiss Challenge Method and only 14 persons had responded to the notification. It is true that the petitioner had quoted the highest rate of Rs.22,000/-. The highest quoted rate being much below the expected rent, the earlier tender process is cancelled and Ext.P6 e-tender notification issued. It is submitted that this time the second respondent had adopted the open tender method which is more transparent. The petitioner need not be apprehensive of the condition that the bidder should have Digital Signature Certificate and GST registration. It is possible to obtained a Digital Signature Certificate in less than half-an-hour. If the petitioner is not having GST registration, he can file an affidavit stating that fact and his tender will not be rejected on that ground.

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the process now adopted by the second respondent cannot be faulted. Even if the petitioner has the highest bidder in the first tender process, that does not confer him with any indefeasible right. Till the contract is concluded, the tenderer has the right to cancel the process. The petitioner would have a cause of action only if the contract is finalisd in favour of a person who had quoted lesser rate. In the instant case, the earlier process is cancelled and e-tender, which is more transparent, has been adopted. Moreover, the petitioner's apprehension has been addressed by making it clear that the second respondent will not insist for production of GST certificate and the petitioner can submit an affidavit in lieu of the certificate. Being so, nothing stands in the way of the petitioner from participating the tender notified by Ext.P6.

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, recording the submission made on behalf of the second respondent that the petitioner can submit an affidavit in lieu of GST registration.