1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in undertaking works contracts for the various instrumentalities of the State. The firm is represented herein by its Executive Partner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of respondents 2 and 3 in proceeding with the tender proceedings notified as per Ext.P1 treating the fifth respondent also as qualified though he had been initially disqualified.

2. The second respondent had invited tenders, on-line for the work of "construction of general market complex, Aluva" by issuing Ext.P1 notice. The estimated amount of the work is Rs.927 lakhs. The period of completion is 15 months. The proceedings were to be completed by e-tender. As per the tender notification, bids had to be submitted on or before 21.1 0.201 4, by 5 p.m. The petitioner submitted his tender on 20.10.2014. The 'bid submission confirmation' has been produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner had submitted his tender with all supporting documents. The bidders have to submit a technical bid as well as a financial bid, separately. The technical bid had to be considered first, by a technical evaluation to be conducted by a duly constiuted committee. Thereafter, the financial bid was to be opened. The date of opening the financial bid was 1.12.2014, 11 a.m. The petitioner's tender was accepted after the technical evaluation, as evidenced by Ext.P4. However, the fifth respondent's tender was rejected as evidenced by Ext.P3. While so, the petitioner was informed that the date of opening the financial bid was postponed from 1.12.201 4 to 3.1 2.201 4. The petitioner also learnt that the date had been postponed since the fifth respondent was also treated as qualified.

3. Further enquiries of the petitioner revealed that though the fifth respondent had not submitted all the necessary documents in support of his technical competence along with his on-line tender, he had supplied necessary documents subsequently and that on an evalation of the documents subsequently produced, his disqualification was set aside and he was also treated as qualified. According to the petitioner, the above action is in contravention of the professed terms of the e-tender notified by the authorities in advance. It is also contended that, the manipulation has been done by exerting political influence on respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, if the tender proceedings are proceeded with, the same would only end in favour of the said respondent, it is contended. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition seeking the intervention of this Court.

4. This writ petition was admitted on 4.2.2014 and an interim direction was issued to respondents 2 to 4 not to consider the fifth respondent's tender for a period of one week. The said interim order is continuing. On receipt of notice, Adv. V.M. Kurian entered appearance for respondents 2 and 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the said respondents producing Ext.R2 (a) document. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent. The petitioner has filed separate reply affidavits to the statement as well as the counter affidavit. The Govt. Pleader was heard on the basis of instructions obtained from respondents 1 and 3. The concerned files have been made available by the Govt. Pleader for perusal of the Court. The writ petition was heard at length. Both sides have placed reliance on various decisions on the point in support of their contentions.

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel Shri. K.L.Varghese, as per the tender notification, all the necessary supporting documents are to be submitted on-line. Off-line submissions are not permitted. It has been notified that the tender would be opened on 27.1 0.201 4 at 11 a.m. The last date for submission of the bids was 21.10.2014, 5 p.m. In accordance with the terms notified, the petitioner had submitted his tender. The technical bids of two bidders viz., the petitioner and Messrs. Royal Constructions were acce