Back
2017 Supreme(Ker) 539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. ASHA, J.
M/S. C.V. THOMAS, CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 18166 of 2016
Decided On : 11-04-2017
For the Petitioners: SRI. G. SHRIKUMAR & SRI. ANIL VINCENT.
For the Respondents: SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR & SRI. P. SHANES METHAR.
The court emphasized the importance of adherence to the eligibility criteria and procedures specified in the bidding documents, and reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in interfering with administrative decisions related to contract awards.
Headnote:
Bidding Process - Engineering Constructions Works - National Competitive Bidding - Clause 16(1) and 16(2) of ITB - Exemption from Payment of Earnest Money - Bid Security - Eligibility Criteria - Financial Turnover - Bid Capacity - Award of Contract
Fact of the Case:
A private limited company challenged the rejection of its bid for a construction project despite being the lowest bidder. The company claimed exemption from payment of earnest money and bid security based on its status as a registered unit under the Single Point Registration Scheme and the Government Stores Purchase Program.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was lawful as it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria specified in the bidding documents. The court also dismissed the petitioner's contentions of undue haste and fraud in the awarding of the contract.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid was justified, and whether the awarding of the contract to the successful bidder was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bidding process and evaluation were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures and that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for exemption from bid security and earnest money. The court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in administrative decisions related to contract awards.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the awarding of the contract to the successful bidder.
P.V. ASHA, J.
1. A private limited company engaged in Engineering Constructions Works has filed this writ petition challenging the action of respondents 1 to 3 in rejecting its bid as per Ext.P7 order by which the 4th respondent has been awarded the work, despite the fact that the petitioner was the lowest bidder.
2. The 2nd respondent - the Chief Engineer of Irrigation Department invited electronic tenders for "construction of new bridge for diversion of traffic for safety of old barrage at Bhoothathankettu" as per Ext.P1 notification dated 29.02.2016 under "National Competitive Bidding." The closing time fixed was 16 hours on 30.03.2016, which was later extended till 4 p.m. on 15.04.2016. The petitioner submitted its online bid on 14.04.2016 and received confirmation for the same as per Ext.P3. It is submitted that the petitioner is eligible for tender fee exemption as well as EMD exemption as per Exts.P4 and P5 orders. "National small industries Corporation Ltd." had in its letter dated 23.3.2016 addressed to the Superintending Engineer of Irrigation Department, informed that the petitioner is a registered unit with them under the Government Stores Purchase Program and as per Government of India's letter F. No. 25(2) 2011-MA dated 14.10.2011 and the Kerala Government Finance Department's order - G.O. (P) No. 489/2013/Fin. dated 26.9.2013, the units registered under the Single Point Registration Scheme are eligible to avail the benefit of exemption from payment of earnest money, waiver of security deposit to the monetary limit for which the unit is registered, issue of tender sets free of cost and price preference upto 15% against L1, while participating in the tenders floated by Central/State Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings and therefore, requested the 3rd respondent to extend those facilities to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that its annual turnover during the year 2011-12 was Rs. 243.39 lakhs; in 2012-13 it was Rs. 390.37 lakhs, and Rs. 229.5 lakhs in 2013-14 with monetary limit of Rs. 196 lakhs in Ext.P5 certificate. In Ext.P5 Government purchase Enlistment Certificate dated 30.12.2015, it was certified that the petitioner's name has been registered as a SSI unit eligible for participation in the Central Government Store Purchase Program as per the Single Point Registration Scheme for the items listed therein, which included construction of bridges, roads and buildings. The petitioner submits that the certificate Ext.P4 was uploaded and it was thereafter Ext.P3 receipt was released confirming the bid of the petitioner. Thereafter when the bid opening was conducted on 22.04.2016, the petitioner's bid was rejected on the ground of non submission of bid security and immediately thereafter Ext.P7 notification awarding contract to the 4th respondent was uploaded after executing agreement with the 4th respondent on 18.05.2016 despite the fact that at the relevant time there was a ban for awarding works from the Election Commissioner. The petitioner submits that Ext.P6 bid opening summary would show that the exemption claimed by the petitioner was never objected and therefore, the rejection of its bid for non-submission of bid security without considering Ext.P4 intimation or Ext.P5 certificate was illegal and vitiated by mala-fides. The petitioner further submits that even though the agreement was executed on 18.05.2016, the tender submission reports were uploaded by the 2nd respondent only on 21.5.2016 which also would show the foul play behind the awarding of work to the 4th respondent. The petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs. 16,82,53,505/- whereas the 4th respondent had quoted a sum of Rs. 17,67,50,362/- i.e. there was a difference of Rs. 84,96,821/-. The writ petition was filed in the above circumstances challenging Exts.P7 notification and P8 report and for a direction to the respondents to award work in favour of the petitioner.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a statement, counter affidav
