Court directs government to decide tender L1 eligibility for EMD exemption after hearing parties, without adjudicating merits.

JUDGMENT

Both these writ petitions are filed by the entities participated in a tender process notified as per Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.25744/2025 was not technically qualified and as far as the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.11552/2026 is concerned, it was the L2. In both these writ petitions, the challenge is raised against the competence of the 3^rd respondent, who happened to be L1. The challenge is raised mainly on the ground that, the 3^rd respondent was allowed to participate in the tender process without payment of EMD, on the reason of exemption provided in the tender notification. 2. According to the petitioners, the relevant clause which is 8.27 in the tender document, provides exemption only to MSMEs with Udyog Aadhar Registration or any other body specified by the Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises working within the State of Kerala. According to the petitioners, the 3^rd respondent is a company not working within the State and it is doing business for a foreign company. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the said respondent is not eligible to get such exemption and therefore, on account of the participation of the 3^rd respondent without payment of EMD and being successful in the tender process, the entire process is vitiated.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rdrespondent, opposes the contention and brought the attention of this Court to the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the said respondents in W.P.(C). No. 25744/2025.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, the tendering authority, submitted that, since the competence of the 3^rd respondent in participating the tender has been raised as an objection by the petitioners, the matter is now placed before the 1^st respondent for taking an appropriate decision. It is submitted that, based on the decision that will be taken by the 1^st respondent in this issue, the 3^rd respondent would take a decision as to whether to proceed with the tender or not.

5. Thus, as it is evident from the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent that, the issue is now pending before the 1^st respondent, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into any finding with respect to the said issues. Therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to take a decision within a time frame.

Accordingly,it is ordered that the 1^st respondent shall consider the question of finalization of the tender process initiated as per Ext.P2, after giving the petitioners, the 3^rd respondent and other affected parties, an opportunity of being heard. Such a decision shall be taken, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.