AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.Manikumar, C.J
Being aggrieved by the judgment made in W.P.(C) No.20101 of 2021 dated 24.11.2021, directing consideration of petitioner's representation Exhibit P9 dated 13.9.2021, within a period of two months and to take appropriate action, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 3rd and additional 4th respondents, if situation so warrants, instant writ appeal is filed.
Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:
According to the appellant, he is a B class PWD contractor. The University Engineer, Kerala University, Thiruvananthapuram - 2nd respondent, invited applications through e-ender for reconstruction of a compound wall with fencing on either side of National Highway at Karyavattom Campus and issued Ext.P10 tender notice.
It is submitted by the appellant that the estimated cost of the work was 98 lakhs and there were 3 participants viz., the appellant and 3rd & 4th respondents. Appellant and 3rd and 4th respondents quoted Rs. 87,32,255/-, Rs. 98,07,195/- and Rs. 1,06,28,864/- respectively.
According to the appellant, as per Ext.P10 tender notice, applications were invited from registered contractors, who have completed a similar nature of work costing more than 40 % of the quoted PAC during the last five years.
Thereupon, appellant submitted Ext.P3 experience certificate regarding his experience in the construction of compound wall. The 3rd respondent submitted Ext.P6 experience certificate regarding the construction of a tennis complex, which does not include a compound wall and the 4th also respondent submitted Ext.P5 experience certificate relating to the construction of buildings.
Thereafter, Exhibit P7 tender summary report was issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the appellant stating that the 'experience certificate not correct' and the 4th respondent's application was also rejected on financial evaluation. The 3rd respondent's tender is accepted and he is issued with Ext.P8 selection notice.
Being aggrieved, appellant submitted Ext.P9 representation before the 1st respondent stating that the entire tender procedure is vitiated by mala fides and that appellant is the person, who is entitled to get the tender.
Writ petition is filed inter alia for a writ calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same and for a direction, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Exhibit P9 representation and stay the operation of Ext.P8, till the disposal of Ext.P9.
After considering the rival submissions with respect to the alleged manipulation, writ court ordered thus:
"7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions as to experience stipulated in the NIT. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the work allotted to him through these proceedings.
However, the petitioner has pointed out that the other participants in the tender proceedings have submitted concocted/fraudulent/insufficient documents evidencing their experience. These certificates have been acted upon by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 representation to the 1st respondent pointing out these facts. However, no action has been taken on Ext.P9 representation.
Going through Exts.P5 and P11, it appears that the participants in the tender proceedings have produced doubtful documents. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the 1st respondent should consider Ext.P9 representation and take appropriate action thereon, if so warranted.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation within a period of two months and take appropriate decision thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 3rd and additional 4th respondents, if the situation so warrants. "
Though, Mr.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for appellant, assailed the correctness of the impugned judgment on the grounds raised, we are of the view that after due consideration of the allegations and submissions advanced by the rival parties, and taking note of the reliefs sought for, one among them, to consider Exhibit P9 representation dated 13.9.2021, writ court has rightly directed that the said representation to be considered. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
Instant writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.