1. Exts.P1 to P3 tender proceedings, floated by the 2nd respondent, in connection with awarding the work of 'Ponnani Port Drudged material purification - Extraction of construction graded sand removing all impurities and processing of byproducts - selection of agency through 'Swiss Challenge Method” are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The main ground of challenge is that, the modalities prescribed for adopting 'Swiss Challenge Method', particularly the guidelines evolved by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in (2009) 7 SCC 462 (Ravi Development Vs. Shree Krishna Prathisthan), have not been followed and that an adverse clause has been incorporated in the tender for providing compensation to an extent of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) to the original propounder of the project, if the bid to be quoted by the others like petitioners comes to be accepted. Despite Ext.P2 tender being an 'International competitive bidding', very short time frame was given to participate in the process and that undue advantage and preferential treatment are sought to be extended to the propounder of the project, whose particulars have not given in the tender documents, nor is there any detail with regard to the particulars of the project and the study/analysis made by the respondents in fixing the compensation payable.

3. The first petitioner is an A-Class registered contractor having sufficient experience, doing major Government contract works for more than two decades and the 2nd petitioner is stated as a Trader in heavy industrial machinery, also having experience in trading of river sand and undertaking Central Government contracts and other related activities.

4. The petitioners came across a tender published in the Government Website in connection with the above project, particulars of which have been extracted and produced as Ext.P1. The petitioners, being desirous of participating in the tender, downloaded the relevant documents and a copy of the downloaded file is produced as Ext.P2. According to the petitioners, Ext.P2 tender was published in the newspaper (Malayala Manorama daily) only on 30.12.2014 and the 'pre-bid meeting' was scheduled to be held on the very next day, ie. On 31.12.2015, as evident from Ext.P3. Clause 2 of Ext.P2 deals with the tender floated in terms of 'Swiss Challenge Method', whereas Clause 4 of the very same document prescribes the compensation payable to the original propounder of the project to an extent of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only), if the original propounder (M/s. Global Trading Company) fails to match the winning bid to be quoted by the successful bidder, if any. The security bid for participating in Ext.P2 tender was originally fixed as Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only), which was subsequently reduced to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) as per Ext.P4 corrigendum dated 26.12.2014. It is contended that the entire bidding process is devised and defined with malafide intent, to favour a particular Company without any justification and denying a level-playing field to other eligible participants. The petitioners also contend that, Ext.P2 tender has been floated also in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, in so far as the tender, though invited in a Minor Port, dredging of sand nevertheless is to be conducted in a river.

5. A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent referring to the sequence of events and the modalities of the 'Swiss Challenge Method'. It is pointed out that, Ext.P1 is a global tender issued on-line, inviting competitive bids for extraction of “construction-grade sand” by removing all impurities and processing of the byproducts - selection of agency through 'Swiss Challenge Method'. Ext.P3 is only an abstract of tenders published between the period from 22.12.2014 to 28.12.2014 by various Departments under the Governm