SINOJ I.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(2.) The petitioner, a Government Contractor, is before this Court challenging the rejection of his tender submitted in response to Exhibit P1 notice inviting tender dated 20.01.2020. The work in question was the construction of a bridge across the Manimala river in Pathanamthitta district. The relevant eligibility condition stated in Exhibit P1 was that the bidder should have completed at least one similar work consisting more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work in the last 5 years. The petitioner contends that he satisfied the qualifications provided in the tender conditions and had submitted Exhibit P3 bid along with Exhibit P2 experience certificate. Exhibit P2 is a certificate issued by the Superintending Engineer (Roads and Bridges), PWD South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram with regard to a work completed in the year 2016.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 was in respect of a work for an amount of Rs.4,61,88,307/- which amounted to more than 50% of the work tendered by Exhibit P1, the estimated cost of which was Rs.7,83,41,245/-. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner's tender was liable to be accepted on the basis of Exhibit P2 experience certificate. The petitioner has also produced Exhibit P6 details of ongoing works along with the tender. It is stated that petitioner was informed by Exhibit P7 dated 10.3.2020 that his bid has been admitted by the Technical Sanction Committee. However, on 16.6.2020 the petitioner was informed that his bid had been rejected at the technical stage on 15.6.2020. Exhibit P10 information was received by the petitioner. Exhibit P11 summary details would show that three other bidders had been found technically qualified and the bid of the 3rd respondent, being the lowest had been accepted. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of his bid without any reason is completely untenable. It is contended that in spite of the petitioner possessing all qualifications as provided in Exhibit P1, his bid, which was lower than that of the 3rd respondent, had been rejected only to eliminate the petitioner and to award the work to the 3rd respondent.