IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. ASHA, J.
M.V. Viswanathan, S/o. Velayudhan Pillai - Petitioner
Versus
Kerala Water Authority, Represented by its Managing Director & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 8539 of 2021 (N)
Decided On : 09-04-2021
Order cancelling contract - Challenged - Based on Ext.P1 notice inviting tender for execution of civil works of "Supplying, Laying, Jointing, Testing and Commissioning of 1422 mm MS pipe 12.5 mm thick clear water gravity main from 120 mid Water Treatment Plant at Dam site to PTP Nagar GLSR and allied works, petitioner submitted his bid after forming a joint Venture and became LI.
Finding of the court: A meeting was held and all the queries raised by the petitioner were clarified in the said meeting, petitioner did not come forward to execute the agreement and the respondents decided to cancel the tender forfeiting the EMD and to rearrange work at the risk and cost.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner challenges Ext.P10 cancellation of award of work. Based on Ext.P1 notice inviting tender for execution of the civil works of "Supplying, Laying, Jointing, Testing and Commissioning of 1422 mm MS pipe 12.5 mm thick clear water gravity main from 120 mid Water Treatment Plant at Neyyar Dam site to PTP Nagar GLSR and allied works, petitioner submitted his bid after forming a joint Venture as Annai Infra-M V Viswanathan-JV and became LI. It is stated that Ext.P4 selection notice was issued on 21.01.2021. According to petitioner he had submitted Exts.P5 to P8 letters to the respondents seeking extension of time for execution of agreement and payment of performance guarantee in accordance with Ext.P4. Petitioner also points out that in view of the election notification, it was not possible to execute the agreement.
2. Learned Standing Counsel points out that as per the selection notice Ext.P4 petitioner ought to have executed the agreement within a period of two weeks. Apart from that, he had to remit the performance guarantee. But the petitioner did not turn up even after several notices were issued.
3. In Ext.P10 order cancelling the contract itself, it is seen that the Superintending Engineer has stated that petitioner was directed to execute the agreement within 15 days from the date of receipt of the selection notice issued on 21.01.2021. Even though, the petitioner received the selection notice on 25.01.2021, petitioner did not take any positive steps to execute the agreement. It is further stated that petitioner was again asked to execute the agreement on or before 08.02.2021, issuing letter dated 05.02.2021. But the petitioner kept quiet. Even though a meeting was held on 05.03.2021 and all the queries raised by the petitioner were clarified in the said meeting, petitioner did not come forward to execute the agreement and the respondents decided to cancel the tender forfeiting the EMD and to rearrange the work at the risk and cost.
When the petitioner has not executed any agreement on receipt of selection notice within the time and the extended time, I do not find anything wrong with Ext.P10. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. This will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the respondents with a representation and for the respondents considering the same.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.