IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
K.S. Mohanan, S/o. Subramanian - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue (Devaswom), Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 27683 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 - Section 3 - Tender - Right of selling coconuts to devotees - Reason for invalidating tender process - Sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to finalise process of tender pursuant to notification and confirm tender in his favour - Petitioner failed to fulfil requisite criteria in Ext.P1 tender notification - Para 15.
Finding of the Court :
Persons who failed to submit identification details like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, affidavit, preliminary agreement and demand draft for required amount in favour of Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom towards EMD were permitted to participate in tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification - Petitioner, who failed to produce demand draft of required sum towards EMD, was permitted to participate in tender process - Instead of a demand draft for required sum, petitioner submitted a fixed deposit receipt in his name, towards EMD - Court find that Managing Committee and Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom, who are legally bound to perform their duties with utmost care and caution, have not taken proper care and caution while dealing with tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification - Court deem it appropriate to direct the 5th respondent Deputy Director to submit a detailed report before this Court.
Result : Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner participated in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice dated 01.07.2023 issued by the Deputy Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, for the kuthaka right of selling coconuts to the devotees and collecting broken coconuts from Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and Sastha Temple for the period from 01.11.2023 to 31.10.2024. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inda, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 re-tender notification dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Deputy Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom as per which the tenders received up to 3.00 p.m. on 25.08.2023 will be opened at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to finalise the process of tender pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 01.07.2023 and confirm the tender in his favour; and a declaration that Ext.P5 re-tender notification dated 07.08.2023 is bad, insofar as it does not give any reason for invalidating the tender process initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notification.
2. On 21.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Guruvayur Devaswom Audit, was suo motu impleaded as the additional 5th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent State and the additional 5th respondent Deputy Director and the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee for respondents 2 to 4.
4. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5 re-tender notification dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Deputy Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom in respect of the kuthaka right of selling coconuts to the devotees and collecting broken coconuts from Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and Sastha Temple for the period from 01.11.2023 to 31.10.2024.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, instead of issuing Ext.P5 re-tender notification, the 2nd respondent Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee should have accepted the bid of the petitioner for Rs.69,66,666/-, which was the 2nd highest bid, when one Anil Kumar, the highest bidder in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification, who quoted Rs.71,01,001/-, failed to submit identification details like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, affidavit as well as preliminary agreement, in time. In addition to Anilkumar and the petitioner, two others quoted Rs.62,36,000/- and Rs.57,26,349/- respectively in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, on instructions, would submit that the tender submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification was not supported by a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, towards the EMD. Instead, the petitioner produced a fixed deposit receipt in his name, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Since Anil Kumar, the highest bidder, failed to submit identification details like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, affidavit as well as preliminary agreement, in time, the Managing Committee decided to issue Ext.P5 re-tender notification.
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner is the successful bidder for the kuthaka item Thulabharam vazhipadu in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple. In that tender process, instead of a demand draft in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, the petitioner submitted a fixed deposit receipt in his name, towards the EMD, which was accepted by the Managing Committee.
8. The specific condition stipulated in Ext.P1 tender notification dated 01.07.2023 and Ex
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.
Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST)
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Grant of judicial relief at instance of a party that does not fulfil requisite criteria is something which could be termed as misplaced.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; rejection based on non-compliance with tender conditions is not arbitrary.
Fairness and transparency in tender processes mandate that bid deadlines cannot be altered without public notice, as such changes can create unfair advantages and violate equal opportunity principles....
Tender authorities must adhere to statutory criteria and act transparently; courts will not interfere unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafide conduct is presented.
Any public auction of the right to open temporary shops/stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple temple and also in the Kovil Padam Road owned by Devaswom can be cond....
The court emphasized that the process adopted by the authorities should not be intended to favor someone, and there should be no mala fide or public interest affected for the impugned tender to be qu....
legal status of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Act is that of a trustee in management of the Devaswom properties and the Committee is duty bound to scrupulou....
Tender regulations must be clear; rejection of a bid due to non-submission of a separate earnest money deposit not stipulated in the regulations is improper.
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.