Each partner in a Joint Venture must individually submit required compliance certificates as stipulated in tender documents to avoid disqualification.

J UDGMENT

Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of executing civil contract works. In response to Ext.P1 e-tender notice published by the 3^rd respondent, inviting tenders for construction of railway tunnel between Nemam and Neyyattinkara Stations as part of doubling of railway track between Thiruvananthapuram and Kanyakumari, petitioner constituted a Joint Venture with a private limited company named Velji Ratna Sorathia Infra Pvt.Ltd. and submitted its bid. Petitioner, being the lead partner, the bid documents were signed by the Managing Partner, as authorised by the other member of the Joint Venture and partners of the petitioner firm. Later, petitioner received Ext.P10 e.mail, informing that its techno-commercial bid was found technically unsuitable since certificates in Forms XVA/XVIA were not submitted by all partners of the petitioner firm. Immediately, petitioner submitted Ext.P11 objection-cum-representation stating that Form XVA is not included in the bid documents and Form XVIA had been submitted by all partners of the petitioner firm, acting through their Managing Partner and Power of Attorney holder. Thereupon, the 2^nd respondent sent Ext.P12 reply justifying rejection of petitioner's techno-commercial bid with reference to Clause 6(iv) of the tender document, which required all partners to submit Annexure-XVI(A), stating that they are not liable to be disqualified and all their statements/documents submitted along with the bid are true. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

“i) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the respondents, calling for the records of the case leading up to Exhibit P12 and quash Exhibits P10 and P12.

ii) declare that Exhibits P10 and P12 are unauthorized, arbitrary and contrary to the instructions in clauses 6(iv) and 14.2 of Exhibit P1 and are illegal, without jurisdiction, invalid, null and void and that the petitioner is eligible and pre-qualified for consideration of its price bid and entitled to award of contract for the work.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the respondents, requiring to forthwith award the contract for the work in Exhibit P1 to the petitioner, or within a time stipulated, to enable it to carry out and complete the works.”

2. Senior Advocate Santhosh Mathew, as instructed by Adv.Mathew Nevin Thomas, put forth the following arguments;

The petitioner firm consists of four partners, viz. Jose Valothil, Madhu Mammen Mathew, Susy Mathew and Anu Joseph. By virtue of Ext.P5, PW5 power of attorney, the Managing Partner, Jose Valothil was authorized to obtain tender documents, to sign and submit the same for consideration by any employer, to sign contract agreements and related documents and to sign any other documents. The requirement of submitting Annexure XVI, referable to clause 6(iv) of Ext.P16 tender document, is to ensure that the members of the partnership firm/Joint Venture are not liable to be disqualified and the statements/documents submitted by them along with the bid are true and factual. The conditions in clause 6 are applicable only to tenderers who are not borne on the approved list of the contractors of the Southern Railway, whereas the petitioner is an approved contractor of the Souther Railway. Moreover, the requirement of clause 6(iv) was met by the submission of Ext.P8 by the petitioner, a member of the Joint Venture. Ext.P13 offer submitted by the petitioner also contains the details of the Joint Venture and all necessary declarations as stipulated by the tender conditions, including a certification that the constituents of the Joint Venture are not blacklisted or debarred by Railways or any other Ministry/D