The petitioner George Thomas is a retired Colonel running a Security Agency, empanelled by the Director General Resettlement (DGR). Ext.P2 is the empanelment certificate and Ext.P3 its renewal. He also has Ext.P4 license issued by the Government of Kerala under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation), Act 2005. Through the Ext.P5, the DGR has also sponsored him for security and allied services.

2. In the Sponsorship Certificate, Lt. Col. Vinod Kumar, the seventh respondent, was assigned the position of being the senior-most followed by Thomas and Maj. Varghese P.C., the eighth respondent.

3. After receiving Ext.P5 sponsorship, Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL), the first respondent, issued the Ext.R4(a) tender notification for security coverage at its Refinery area and at its city office: SWSS Aluva STF, SPM and Estates. The Ext.R4(a), in fact, is an e-tender, with a strict stipulation that all the bids will be evaluated from the inputs made by the bidders on the procurement portal. It also cautions in express terms that the offer submitted against the tender will be evaluated electronically and 'vendors' are to comply with the guidelines provided in the tender notification. All the three candidates sponsored by the DGR-Vinod Kumar, George Thomas, and Varghese-as mentioned in Ext.P5, responded to Ext.R4(a) tender notification.

4. As seen from record, eventually, through Ext.P12, BPCL rejected George Thomas's bid on two grounds: (a) That he quoted rates lower than those stipulated by the DGR; (b) that he has not quoted ‘hardship’ allowance-another mandatory requirement.

5. Aggrieved, assailing Ext.P12, George Thomas has filed this writ petition.

6. Sri George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the petitioner’s counsel, has strenuously contended that the Ext.P12 cannot be sustained with whatever justification. According to him, the reasons assigned in Ext.P12 for rejecting George Thomas's bid smack of mala fides, ill-will, and bias. Elaborating, Sri George Varghese has submitted that the Government through Ext.P8 exempted the application of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, to a class of employees who include ex-service men. According to him, the petitioner’s excluding the amounts on ESI and, as a result, quoting amounts lower than those quoted by the DGR cannot be fatal.

7. On the hardship allowance, Sri Varghese has further contended that, as seen from clause 7 of Ext.P7, it is fixed. Therefore, George Thomas's failure to mention the amount does not lead to any prejudice either.

8. As a matter of further contention, Sri Varghese has also accused BPCL of gross favouritism. To elaborate, he would contend that even before the BPCL scrutinised and finalised the bids, Vinod Kumar interviewed prospective employees in BPCL’s official premises, as if he would emerge the successful bidder and would engage them on his behalf: he had all along enjoyed the principal employer's patronage. Sri Varghese has drawn my attention to paragraph-14 of the writ petition to hammer home his contention that George Thomas did make the allegation at the earliest point of time; he has even emailed his protest on that count.

9. Sri George Varghese has also submitted that, after rejecting the petitioner's bid, BPCL first considered Maj. Varghese’s bid, for he was the second lowest bidder. But BPCL entertained a letter of correction from Maj. Varghese; ensured that his quote was on a par with that of Vinod Kumar, BPCL’s blue-eyed candidate; and eventually awarded work to Vinod Kumar: it was on the premise that once the bids are equal, the senior-most must be preferred.

10. In short, Sri George Varghese would contend that the tender notification contains no provision permitting any bidder to supplement his bid or to vary the rates quoted. Had they accepted Maj. Varghese’s bid without entertaining correction to his quote, he would have been allotted the work; Vinod Kumar would not have stood any chance.

11. So the learned counsel has strenuously contende