Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anu Sivaraman, J.
Sinoj I.V. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 12051 of 2020
Decided On : 10-07-2020
For the Appellant : P. Mohandas, K. Sudhinkumar, S.K. Adhithyan, Sabu Pullan and Gokul D. Sudhakaran
For the Respondents: GP and K.V. Manoj Kumar
Administrative decisions in the realm of contract can be interfered with only on limited grounds of being arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by mala fides.
Headnote:
Tender Rejection - Government Contractor - Exhibit P1 - Exhibit P2 - Exhibit P6 - Exhibit P7 - Exhibit P10 - Exhibit P11 - Exhibit R1(a) - Exhibit R1(b) - [Relevant eligibility condition stated in Exhibit P1 was that the bidder should have completed at least one similar work consisting more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work in the last 5 years. The petitioner contends that he satisfied the qualifications provided in the tender conditions and had submitted Exhibit P3 bid along with Exhibit P2 experience certificate. The rejection of the petitioner's bid was due to the evaluation by the Technical Sanction Committee that the experience certificate provided by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The Technical Sanction Committee had considered Exhibit P2 and had come to the conclusion that the work for which Exhibit P2 experience certificate had been issued was not completed within the time provided for completion in the agreement and had been completed only after grant of five extensions. The decision of the Technical Sanction Committee which is on record appears to be a reasoned one. In such a situation, this Court would not be justified in substituting its reasoning for that of the duly empowered committee. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Government Contractor, challenged the rejection of his tender for the construction of a bridge across the Manimala river in Pathanamthitta district, based on the eligibility condition that the bidder should have completed at least one similar work consisting more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work in the last 5 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was due to the evaluation by the Technical Sanction Committee that the experience certificate provided by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The court concluded that the decision of the Technical Sanction Committee appeared to be reasoned and that there were no substantive allegations of mala fides or extraneous considerations to justify interference.
Issues: The issues revolved around the satisfaction of the eligibility condition, the rejection of the petitioner's bid, and the propriety of interference in an administrative decision with regard to the qualification of a tenderer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative decisions in the realm of contract can be interfered with only on limited grounds of being arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by mala fides. In the absence of substantive allegations of mala fides or extraneous considerations, the court could not be justified in interfering with the decision taken by the evaluation committee.
Final Decision: The writ petition failed and was accordingly dismissed.
ORDER :
Anu Sivaraman, J.
1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner, a Government Contractor, is before this Court challenging the rejection of his tender submitted in response to Exhibit P1 notice inviting tender dated 20.01.2020. The work in question was the construction of a bridge across the Manimala river in Pathanamthitta district. The relevant eligibility condition stated in Exhibit P1 was that the bidder should have completed at least one similar work consisting more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work in the last 5 years. The petitioner contends that he satisfied the qualifications provided in the tender conditions and had submitted Exhibit P3 bid along with Exhibit P2 experience certificate. Exhibit P2 is a certificate issued by the Superintending Engineer (Roads and Bridges), PWD South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram with regard to a work completed in the year 2016.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext. P2 was in respect of a work for an amount of Rs. 4,61,88,307/- which amounted to more than 50% of the work tendered by Exhibit P1, the estimated cost of which was Rs. 7,83,41,245/-. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner's tender was liable to be accepted on the basis of Exhibit P2 experience certificate. The petitioner has also produced Exhibit P6 details of ongoing works along with the tender. It is stated that petitioner was informed by. Exhibit P7 dated 10.3.2020 that his bid has been admitted by the Technical Sanction Committee. However, on 16.6.2020 the petitioner was informed that his bid had been rejected at the technical stage on 15.6.2020. Exhibit P10 information was received by the petitioner.. Exhibit P11 summary details would show that three other bidders had been found technically qualified and the bid of the 3 respondent, being the lowest had been accepted. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of his bid without any reason is completely untenable. It is contended that in spite of the petitioner possessing all qualifications as provided in Exhibit P1, his bid, which was lower rd than that of the 3 respondent, had been rejected only to eliminate rd the petitioner and to award the work to the 3 respondent.
4. A statement has been placed on record by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that Exhibit P1 tender notice specifically provided that the bidder should have successfully completed at least one similar work costing more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work within the last five years. It is stated that all other existing conditions relating to bidding in force in the Kerala Public Works Department would be applicable to this tender unless expressly defined in the bidding document. It is contended that it was therefore amply clear that the provisions of the standard bidding document would be applicable in the case of the present bid also, which fact was perfectly known to the petitioner, who was a Government Contractor. It is stated that the relevant clauses of Part VI of the qualification information clause of the standard bidding document is produced as Exhibit R1(a). It is contended that the standard bidding document specifically provided that bidders shall provide evidence satisfactory to the employer, notwithstanding any previously conducted prequalification of potential, of their capacity and adequacy of resources effectively to carry out the subject contract. Details of experience and past performance of bidder of works of a similar nature within the past five years and details of current work in hand and other contractual commitments were specifically called for.
5. It is stated at paragraph 4 of the statement as follows:-
"It is submitted that in Exhibit P1 notice inviting tenders it is specifically stated that the bid submitted by the bidders who have successfully completed at le
