The main legal point established in the given judgment is the importance of procedural fairness in the awarding of contracts, the limitations of judicial review in matters of economic policy, and the necessity for transparency, fairness, and open procedures in the acceptance of tenders.

Headnote:
TENDER - Contract Work for Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project - [Annexure III, Annexure V, Ext. P4, Ext. P7, Art.226, Art.298, Art.299(1)] - The court discussed the award of contract work for the second stage construction of breakwaters for the Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project. The judgment highlighted the importance of pre-qualification tender, the nature of the project as an extension of the existing contract, and the authority of the Government to make decisions regarding contract awards. The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness in the awarding of contracts and the limitations of judicial review in matters of economic policy. It also addressed the public interest and the necessity for transparency, fairness, and open procedures in the acceptance of tenders. The judgment set aside the impugned judgment of the learned single judge and directed the Government to conduct an enquiry and investigation into the allegations raised by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:

The main dispute involved the award of contract work for the second stage construction of breakwaters for the Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project. The contract was awarded to the existing contractor M/s. Kaikkara Construction Company, and the petitioner, who was not a pre-qualified contractor for the first stage of the work, sought tender documents for the second stage but was denied.
Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned judgment of the learned single judge and directed the Government to conduct an enquiry and investigation into the allegations raised by the petitioner. It allowed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation and produce evidence in support of the allegations. The court emphasized the importance of public interest and the need for transparency, fairness, and open procedures in the acceptance of tenders.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the project as an extension of the existing contract, the authority of the Government to make decisions regarding contract awards, the importance of pre-qualification tender, and the need for procedural fairness in the awarding of contracts.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the limitations of judicial review in matters of economic policy, the necessity for transparency, fairness, and open procedures in the acceptance of tenders, and the importance of public interest in the awarding of contracts.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of the learned single judge was set aside, and the Government was directed to conduct an enquiry and investigation into the allegations raised by the petitioner. The Writ Appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.

Judgment :-

P.A. Mohammed, J.

The main dispute involved in these appeals relates to the award of contract work for the second stage construction of breakwaters for the Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project. The contract was awarded to the existing contractor M/s. Kaikkara Construction Company who was one of the pre-qualified contractors participated in the tender for first stage of the work in respect of the same project.

2. These two writ appeals arose from the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 6242 of 1998 declaring Ext. P7 decision of the Superintending Engineer, Harbour Engineering Project Circle, Kollam as illegal. The decision was that 'M/s. Top Constructions' was the sub contractor of M/s. Paily Pillai and Sons and the tender documents in relation to IInd stage work of the project would be issued only to the pre-qualified contractors of Thangassery Fishery Harbour - construction of breakwaters. W.A.No.1765 of 1998 is filed by the fifth respondent in the writ petition, M/s. Kaikkara Construction Company and W.A. No. 2118 of 1998 is filed by the Superintending Engineer and others, respondents 1 to 4.

3. For the sake of convenience we refer to the parties in these appeals as described in the Writ Petition. The petitioner is a registered contractor and he applied for the tender documents in respect of the contract work of Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project- IInd Stage. The first stage of the work was tendered in the year 1991 and there was a pre-qualification tender in which the petitioner did not participate. After pre-qualification test the fifth respondent was accepted as the successful tenderer for the First stage of work. During the course of the execution of the said work the Government decided to improve the facility of the harbour by shifting the location of leeward breakwater and extending the length of the main breakwater by 415 mts. As a result of this decision the operational area of harbour was increased to 2.5 sq. km. against the original area of 1.5 sq. km. The fifth respondent had completed 1,685 mts. length of main breakwater and the leeward breakwater by 30-11-1997. The petitioner sent an application dated 25-09-1997 requesting the first respondent to issue tender documents in respect of the work of Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project - IInd stage construction of breakwaters from 1685 to 2100 mts. Along with the said application a draft for Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the first respondent was also sent. However the first respondent issued tender documents to the fifth respondent and three other contractors ignoring the request made by the petitioner. The last date fixed for submitting the tender was 9-10-1997. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext. P6 representation dated 25-9-1997 before the third respondent the Chief Engineer requesting to interfere in the matter of awarding contract for TFHPII stage construction works. However the first respondent by Ext. P7 dated 12-3-1998 rejected the petitioner's request for the issue of tender documents and he was informed that tender documents would be issued only to the pre-qualified contractors who had been allowed to participate in the first stage of the construction work.

4. The learned single judge after admitting the Writ Petition, O.P. No. 6242/98, rejecting the interim prayer directing the respondents not to proceed with the contract work. But the court has observed that the award of the work in favour of the fifth respondent would be subject to the result of the Original Petition. As against the said order dated 6-4-1998 in C.M.P. No. 11099/98 the petitioner filed W.A. No. 801 of 1998 of 1998 before the Division Bench. Along with the writ appeal CMP No. 2114 of 1998 was also filed for interim orders. The Division Bench after considering the case ordered that the construction of the work by the fifth respondent was purely subject to the final result and it was at the risk of the fifth respondent. Ultimately the learned single judge passed the impugned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(Ker) 560

The main legal point established in the given judgment is the importance of procedural fairness in the awarding of contracts, the limitations of judicial review in matters of economic policy, and the necessity for transparency, fairness, and open procedures in the acceptance of tenders.

Cases Referred (2)