K.T.MUSTHAFA Vs. NILAMBUR BLOCK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 6th day of March 2020 This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P7 and P10 communications, by which, the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification stands rejected. The petitioner, a Government contractor, had submitted his bid pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice for the construction of two blocks of buildings for the Government Higher Secondary School, Eranjimangad in Chaliyar Grama Panchayat. It is submitted that his bid was duly received and communication of confirmation was issued by Ext.P5. The technical bid submitted by the petitioner was accepted after evaluation and Ext.P6 SMS was received by the petitioner on 2.11.2019. However, on 22.11.2019, the petitioner was informed by Ext.P7 SMS message that his bid was not admitted by the Committee. The petitioner submits that he was informed on enquiries that the rejection was on account of the defect that hard copy of the documents were not properly attested.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no approval from the Chief Engineer is required since the work is below Rs.5 Crores and the rejection of the bid at the instance of the Chief Engineer was completely unwarranted. It is submitted that on opening of the financial bid, the work was awarded to the 5th respondent, who quoted a rate higher than the petitioner's bid. It is stated that in view of Ext.P9 circular dated 25.10.2018, directing that a chance to rectify defects should be granted to bidders, the rejection of the bid was completely erroneous. It is stated that Ext.P10 communication issued on 30.11.2019 informing the petitioner of the rejection of his bid is also therefore vitiated.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Apex Court in M/s.Poddar Steel Corporation v. M/s.Ganesh Engineering Works and others [AIR 1991 SC 1579] to contend that the mechanical insistence on complying with every condition in the tender notice is not contemplated where public interest would be served by granting an opportunity to cure the minor defects, if any. It is further submitted that there was no condition in Ext.P1 tender notice that the experience certificate should be attested by a Government servant and that the rejection at the instance of the 4th respondent, who had no role in the scheme of things, is completely illegal.