Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, CJ, S.MANU, J
V.m.asharaf S/o. Mammu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's contention on qualification (Para 3) |
| 2. government pleader's defense (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. ambiguity in tender notice (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. need for clarity in tendering (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. judgment set aside (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
The 2nd Respondent issued notice inviting tender for the work “REBUILD-RKI-Flood 2018 – Renovation of Shutters and Hoisting mechanism of Enamakkal Regulator (Mechanical works)- General Mechanical Work” on 23 January 2024. Bids were invited from “the Registered Bidders of Kerala PWD or from any State or Central Government Engineering Departments which are having similar functionalities like Kerala PWD.” Estimated cost of the work as per the notice is Rs.3,83,88,277/-. Against the column No.8- classification of bidder, in the notice it was specified as “CIVIL-A”. Part I of the standard bid document of the Irrigation Department contains instructions to the bidders. Clause 1.3 deals with eligible bidders. Clause 1.3.1 reads thus:- “A Bidder shall be a registered contractor in Kerala Public Works Department or from any State or Central Government Engineering Departments which are having similar functionalities like Ke
Tender notices must clearly define eligibility criteria to ensure fairness and prevent discrimination among bidders, particularly when involving contractors from different states.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
The court ruled that tender eligibility criteria must explicitly state disqualifications, allowing joint venture experience to be considered for bidder qualifications, ensuring clarity and fairness i....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Public authorities must ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in tender processes, adhering to established eligibility criteria.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of judicial review in tender matters, the need for commercial prudence in evaluating tenders, and the importance of fairness and non....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or biased.
Essential tender eligibility criteria must be strictly complied with, and any deviation leads to arbitrary exercise of power, warranting judicial review.
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
