SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15449

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Respondent
WA 811 2023



Advocates:
NISHA GEORGE GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) N.ANAND P.M.JOHNY ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS(K/571/2014) P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM(MAH/002141/2016) V.ABRAHAM MARKOS(K/354/1975) JOHN VITHAYATHIL(K/001877/2021) AIBEL MATHEW SIBY(K/1376/2020) JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)(J-381) ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS(K/001270/2018)

The court affirmed that judicial restraint is crucial when reviewing administrative decisions in tender processes, emphasizing the committee's discretion over technical qualifications.

Headnote:

Tender - Writ Appeals - Kerala Water Authority Act Section List - The court affirmed the evaluation of the tender committee, concluding that the disqualified bidders lacked the requisite past experience stipulated by the tender's terms, prioritizing the principles of administrative discretion and judicial restraint in commercial transactions.

Fact of the Case:

Two engineering firms challenged their disqualification from a tender for a water supply project by the Kerala Water Authority. They sought to annul the committee's decision and reinstatement of their bids, citing experience certificates as grounds for their claims.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the tender committee's evaluation thorough and lawful, emphasizing its expertise and the legal framework governing public tenders. The technical assessments were deemed non-arbitrary, and the committee's discretion was respected.

Issues: Whether the tender committee's decision to disqualify the appellants based on insufficient technical experience was arbitrary or unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review in tender matters is limited; the evaluation of qualifications lies within the discretion of the tendering authority, and unless shown to be arbitrary, courts should defer to the committee's expertise.

Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, upholding the tender committee's decision.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

Since common issues are involved, these writ appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.A.No.811 of 2023:- The appellant, namely, Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., filed W.P.(C) No.10993 of 2023 before this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16 pre-qualification approval of tenders dated 25.03.2023 issued by the 4th respondent Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, PH Circle, Kozhikode to the extent it disqualified the petitioner in Ext.P1 e-tender notice dated 13.09.2022 regarding Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) Phase II : Water Supply Scheme (WSS) to Chathamangalam and adjoining panchayats in Kozhikode District. The further reliefs sought for are a declaration that the petitioner is prequalified to get the work tendered in Ext.P1 e-tender notice dated 13.09.2022 and Ext.P2 notice inviting tender (Volume I); a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P16 to the extent it prequalified the 5th and 6th respondents, namely, Midland Engineering and Contracting Company and one Joseph John and the resultant award of tender in favour of the said respondents; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the tender based on the rate quoted by the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 tender notifications.

3. W.A.No.813 of 2023:- The appellant, namely, Reena Engineering and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., filed W.P.(C)No.10996 of 2023 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P18 pre-qualification approval of tenders dated 25.03.2023 issued by the 4th respondent Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, PH Circle, Kozhikode to the extent it disqualified the petitioner in Ext.P1 e- tender notice dated 13.09.2022 regarding JJM Phase II : WSS to Chathamangalam and adjoining panchayats in Kozhikode District. The further reliefs sought for are a declaration that the petitioner is prequalified to get the work tendered in Ext.P1 e-tender notice dated 13.09.2022 and Ext.P2 notice inviting tender (Volume I); a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P18 to the extent it prequalified the 5th and 6th respondents, namely, Midland Engineering and Contracting Company and one Joseph John and the resultant award of tender in favour of the said respondents; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the tender based on the rate quoted by the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 tender notifications. The appellant submitted bid pursuant to Ext.P1 e-tender notification, in a joint venture with Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in W.A.No.811 of

2023.

4. By the judgment dated 11.04.2023, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)Nos.10993 & 10996 of 2023 holding that the Special Committee for pre-qualification approval has examined the entire pros and cons of the matter and arrived at its own conclusions, taking into account the contentions advanced and the documents produced by the respective bidders. Even though the writ petitioners have raised contentions with respect to the ineligibility of respondents 5 and 6 to prequalify, it cannot be said that the evaluation done by the Special Committee is in any way illegal, arbitrary, perverse or out of any extraneous consideration or vitiated by mala fides. The Special Committee has evaluated the past experience of the writ petitioners and has arrived at its own findings, taking into account the documents produced and therefore, it cannot be said that the said evaluation is in any way bad, illegal or arbitrary. The learned Single Judge noticed that a full-fledged hearing and participation was given to all the bidders by the Special Committee consisting of technically qualified persons and the writ petitioners have not established any case of illegality, arbitrariness or any other legal infirmities to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Special Committee,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top