The court upheld the state’s right to redefine project scope necessitating a new tender process based on policy considerations and financial realities.

JUDGMENT

1.This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i)issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P12 and quash the same.

ii)issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction calling for the records relating to the issuance of the revised E tender Exhibit P6 and quash the same.

Iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to proceed with the original tender dated 2.10.2015 from the stage of Exhibit P4 declaration of the petitioner as L1 so as to complete the process of tendering to enable the commencement of the project i.e.constuction of Innovation Cum Incubation Tower and allied works for the Life Sciences Park, Thonnakkal, Thiruvananthapuram forthwith.”

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had published Exhibit P1 'e' tender for the construction of an Innovation Cum Incubation tower for the Life Sciences Park, Thonnakkal, Thiruvananthapuram with an estimated value of Rs.129,67,13,495/-. The petitioner submitted an e tender which was notified as the lowest bid by Exhibit P4. The 2nd respondent thereafter cancelled the bid citing administrative reasons and issued Exhibit P6 revised tender notification. These actions were challenged before this Court. By Exhibit P8 judgment, the cancellation of the tender was interdicted on a finding that the decision making process which led to the same was vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness, impropriety and non-consideration of relevant aspects. The question whether the variations in works would come within the scope of protection afforded by clause 35 was directed to be considered afresh. The committee constituted was directed to examine the whole matter and give an expert and technical opinion as to whether the variations that have emerged in the works will come within the scope and ambit of Clause 35 of the terms and conditions of Exhibit P1 bid. The petitioner was also directed to be heard in the matter. However, the re-tender was not interdicted. It was further directed that if the decision of the PIC was to proceed with the original tender, then the revised tender notice would stand automatically rescinded. It is stated that the 3rd respondent thereafter submitted Exhibit P12 report which was not in accordance with the directions in Exhibit P8 judgment. It was opined in the report that Clause 35 of the tender document itself is ambiguous and both the original tender and the revised tender were liable to be cancelled and a further tender was to be floated. The said report is under challenge in this writ petition.

4.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is stated therein that consequent to Exhibit P8 judgment, the 3rd respondent committee was constituted and the entire aspects were examined, but the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by the committee to attend a hearing. Thereafter, Exhibit P12 report was submitted. The 2nd respondent had decided to request KITCO or any other competent agency to scrutinise and confirm the estimates as per the re-tender before opening the financial bid. It is stated that thereafter, the revised estimate was again examined by KITCO and the KITCO observed that there are errors and omissions in the revised tender also and the KITCO had therefore recommended to cancel re-tender issued on 2.3.2016 considering the fact that the revised CPWD schedule of rates came into existence w.e.f. 1.4.2017. It is stated in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit as follows:-

“It is therefore prayed that KSIDC may be allowed to withdraw from the tender in view of the revision of the CPWD schedule of rates which is expected to reduce the cos