ITHAL ENGINEERING GROUPS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant challenged the award of work by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'KSEB') to the 3 rd respondent pursuant to Ext.P1(a) to Ext.P1(f) tender notifications. Out of 6 works tendered, appellant was the lowest bidder in two, while the 3 rd respondent was the lowest in four. The contracts were awarded to all the lowest bidders. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition after finding that the writ petition lacks merit. Hence, the writ appeal at the instance of writ petitioner.

(2.) KSEB invited competitive online tenders for drawing 11 KV overhead line with covered conductor for a few project management unit works under the Electrical Circle, Thrissur. Pre-qualification bids were opened on 18.09.2019 in respect of tenders notified under Ext.P1(a) to Ext.P1(d) while those tenders notified under Ext.P1(e) to Ext.P1(f) were opened on 13.11.2019. As mentioned earlier, ultimately appellant was awarded the work in respect of two tenders, while the 3 rd respondent was awarded work in respect of four tenders, both of them being the lowest bidders in their respective bids. In substance, the appellant challenges the award of four works to 3rd respondent.

(3.) The main contention raised by the appellant is that as per the tender conditions relating to 'bidders requirement' in Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent being a new entrant, does not satisfy the technical conditions stipulated therein. It was specifically emphasised that the 3rd respondent, who is a turnkey contractor, did not have the previous experience of three years in supply of covered conductors as contemplated under clause 3 of the bidder requirement and also that the type test reports of 11 KV covered conductor carried out in India, as per the norms in labs like CPRI/EDA were also not submitted along with the bid, which rendered the bid liable to be rejected. Instead of rejecting the bid, the committee for finalisation of the bid, relaxed the condition, as seen from Ext.P3, and recommended to include as a special clause in the work order to conduct the type test at the site after supply of materials. According to the appellant, when the work order was issued, a further relaxation was granted by the 2nd respondent by incorporating a clause in Ext.P5 stating that type test on the material supplied need to be carried out, only if it was found necessary.