SIVANANDAN Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER COMMERCIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent issued tender notice (Ext. R1(a)) calling for tenders for exhibiting hoardings at Calicut Railway Station. Pursuant to the said tender notice the petitioner submitted his tender. According to the petitioner he satisfied all the requirements of the tender and that the rate quoted by the petitioner is the highest. The complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner to get the contract and had awarded the said contract to the 4th respondent who has quoted only a lesser amount.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated therein that the tender conditions, inter alia, require the tenderer to enclose along with the tender form a guarantee bond from a bank for not less than the amount of 6 months rent, that it also requires production of income tax clearance certificate and solvency certificate in original along with the tender, that the petitioner and 3 others including the 4th respondent have submitted tenders, that the tenders were opened on 28.11.2000, that after disclosing the amount quoted by each tenderer the matter was left for scrutiny and verification of the credentials, certificates, etc., that at the time of opening of the tender the eligibility of the tenderers and compliance of tender conditions, etc. are not considered or adverted to, that they are all matters to be decided by the tender committee on the basis of the documents produced and the result of verification of the credentials, etc. by the staff concerned and that the only verification made at the opening of the tender is regarding the payment of earnest money deposit. It is also stated that a tender committee consisting of a Divisional Engineer, Divisional Commercial Manager - I and Asst. Divisional Accounts Officer have been constituted on 20.12.2000, that they met on 8.5.2001 for scrutiny and awarding of the contract, that as per the tender conditions contained in Ext. P1 a tender will remain valid only for 3 months, that the Railway by letter dated 23.4.2001 asked all the tenderers to submit a letter agreeing to extend the validity period, that 3 tenderers including the petitioner and the 4th respondent have communicated agreeing to extend the validity period and that at the time of sending Ext. R1(b) letter the eligibility of tenderers have not been subjected to verification in full. It is further stated that the petitioner has not produced the solvency certificate and income tax clearance certificate along with the tender submitted by him and that the petitioner has also failed to produce guarantee bond equivalent to 6 months quoted rent as required in Ext. P1. The 4th respondent suspecting some foul play in the matter had sent a letter dated 31.3.2001 (Ext. R1(C)). The tender committee, it is stated, met on 8.5.2001 and recommended to award the contract to the 4th respondent, copy of the proceedings (Ext. R1(d)) of the tender committee is also produced which contains the details of verification results in respect of each tender. The 4th respondent, it is stated, has offered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,86,540/- as rent for the first year as against the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- quoted by him at the first instance. The work has been awarded to the 4th respondent on 11.5.2001.

(3.) Counter affidavit and addl. counter affidavit are filed by the 4th respondent. It is, inter alia, stated therein that the 4th respondent at the time of opening the tender itself had objected to the entertainment of the tender submitted by the petitioner since the petitioner's tender did not accompany the solvency certificate and that he had signed the proceedings signifying his protest. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a false affidavit Ext. P2. Various over averments contained in the O. P. were denied. The 4th respondent has stated that he is fully qualified and eligible for getting the work in question. Regarding the averment of the petitioner that the 4th respondent did not produce evidence regarding proof of his age it is stated that the requirement of production of evidence regarding the age of the tenderer is only for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the tenderer is a major and that since the 4th respondent is an existing contractor of the first respondent there was no need for production of proof of age.