Tendering authorities' discretion in eligibility criteria application upheld unless proven irrational; courts defer to their expertise unless clear biases are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who submitted tender pursuant to Ext.P2 re-tender notification dated 30.09.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner for supply of manpower for the preparation of Appam Prasadam at Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1200ME (2024-25), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that he is entitled to be awarded with the contract in furtherance of Ext.P2 re-tender notification for preparation of Appam Prasadam in ‘Steam Kara’, being the second lowest tenderer, as the 4^th respondent who has come out as the first lowest tenderer is not qualified to participate in the tender, by virtue of the disqualification under clauses (11) and (14) of the general conditions in Ext.P2 re-tender notification. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to award the contract for supply of manpower for preparation of Appam Prasadam in Sabarimala Devaswom in ‘Steam Kara’ to the petitioner, in furtherance of Ext.P2 re-tender notification.

2. On 18.11.2024, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall take out notice to the 4^th respondent by availing e-post facilities. By the order dated 18.11.2024, Registry was directed to issue notice to the 4^th respondent by e-post and list the matter on 25.11.2024. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions.

3. On 27.11.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the 4^th respondent entered appearance through counsel, who sought time to file counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the counter affidavit on behalf of the Board shall be placed on record before the next posting date.

4. The 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 09.12.2024, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) documents, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of that counter affidavit read thus;

“8. The petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent does not meet the eligibility criteria specified in clauses 11 and 14 of Ext.P2 notification, particularly the requirement of three years’ experience within the last five years. The petitioner contends that the contract should have been awarded to him as the 2^nd lowest tenderer. It is submitted that the 4^th respondent has produced certificate of experience for the period from 2022 to 2024, i.e., 2022-23 and 2023-24. In addition he has produced certificate of experience during the period 2012-2013 also. Whereas the experience certificate produced by the petitioner along with his bid reveals that he has experience for 8/2020 (1196ME) and 8/21 (1197ME) only. True copy of the bid dated 08.10.2024 submitted by petitioner together with the documents is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(a). True copy of the bid dated 08.10.2024 submitted by the 4^th respondent together with the documents is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(b).

9. It is submitted that on a comparative analysis of the experience of the petitioner and the 4^th respondent it is clear that the 4^th respondent is more experienced than the petitioner. The 4^th respondent has the eligibility as per Ext.P2 notification and the petitioner lacks the requisite experience prescribed in the notification. Moreover, Ext.P