ASHRAF V.P. Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be transport contractors for several establishments including Supplyco. Supplyco had, as per Ext.P1 notification on 15.07.2020, invited tenders for lifting, transportation, handling and delivery of ration articles from source Godowns to destination Godowns. In this Writ Petition, filed on 23.11.2020, the complaint of the petitioners is that while issuing Ext.P1 notification various Godowns functioning in the respective regions and that several godowns which are nearing completion are also not disclosed in Tirur, Ponnani and Mannarcaud are not disclosed by Supplyco. According to them the non-disclosure is to enable the Depot Managers to entrust the transportation with respect to such godowns to persons of their choice immediately on the commissioning of these godowns/finalisation of tender. Petitioners allege that 2 godowns in Tirur which are nearing commissioning, one functional godown in Ponnani and 4 functional godowns in Mannarcaud do not find any place in the tender notification and that has affected the rates quoted by the tenderers. According to them a re-tender notification is to be issued including four NFSA Depots functioning in Mannarcaud Taluk, one non-computerized functional depot in Ponnani and the proposed 2 additional Depots in Tirur. Therefore according to the petitioners, respondents cannot be permitted to proceed further with the process based on Ext.P1 tender notice and they should be directed to issue notices for re- tendering the work, including the undisclosed Depots in the tenders for the respective regions.

(2.) Smt.Molly Jacob, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Supplyco stoutly opposed the prayers in the Writ Petition. She pointed out that the petitioners were supposed to submit their bid after getting familiarised with the location, the nature of work, etc which is specifically provided in the tender notice itself in para 1.(5). Pointing out paragraph 18 of the tender notification, she argued that the tender notice itself takes care of the situations when there occurs addition of Depots. According to her, the petitioners who are existing contractors want to see that the tenders invited never get finalised, because they want to continue with the present contract by delaying the finalisation of the contract.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel on both sides it is seen that petitioners themselves claim that they are existing transporting contractors. If that be so, it is not understood why they remained silent all these 4 months that too after submitting their bids, to point out the alleged suppression of functioning godowns or the godowns under construction.