G.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of Ext.P1 tender notice, the third respondent invited online bids for executing a work for removal of earth deposited during flood from 'varattar' and 'Adhipamba' rivers in Pathanamthitta District. Both petitioner and the fourth respondent submitted bids pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice. The bid submitted by the fourth respondent was the highest. Though the rate quoted by the fourth respondent was Rs.501/- per cubic meter, on negotiation, the fourth respondent raised his offer to Rs.684/- per cubic meter. On 02.06.2020, the third respondent awarded the work to the fourth respondent and directed him to furnish the security deposit namely Rs.2,19,65,800/-in the manner prescribed and execute the agreement in stamp paper worth Rs.4,39,400/-within 14 days without fine and within 24 days with fine. Ext.P5 is the selection notice issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent in this regard. The fourth respondent did not furnish the security deposit within the time stipulated in Ext.P5 selection notice. Instead, on 25.09.2020, he submitted a representation to the third respondent seeking orders enlarging the time fixed for furnishing the security deposit and execution of the agreement in the light of the restrictions imposed by the Government for preventing the spread of Covid-19 pandemic. On the basis of the request made by the the fourth respondent, the third respondent granted time to the fourth respondent till 26.10.2020 for furnishing security deposit and execution of the agreement. Ext.R3(a) is the communication issued by third respondent in this regard on 21.10.2020.

(2.) It appears that the third respondent entertained a doubt in the meanwhile as to the amount of the security deposit to be furnished by the fourth respondent, and after clearing the said doubt, the third respondent issued Ext.P6 communication to the fourth respondent on 30.10.2020 stating that the amount of the security deposit to be furnished by him is Rs.4,39,31,500/-. In terms of Ext.P6 communication, the third respondent directed the fourth respondent to furnish the security deposit and execute the agreement within seven days from the date of receipt of the said communication. The fourth respondent did not execute the agreement within the time stipulated in Ext.P6 communication as well. Instead, as the security deposit was doubled, on 23.12.2020, the fourth respondent preferred a representation to the third respondent seeking permission to furnish the security deposit in instalments. Ext.R4(f) is the representation submitted by the fourth respondent in this regard. Ext.R4(f) representation was rejected by the third respondent on 24.03.2021.

(3.) In the meanwhile, on 11.02.2021, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation to the third respondent requesting the third respondent to award the work to him pointing out that since the fourth respondent has not furnished the security deposit and executed the agreement within the time stipulated in Ext.P5, the work ought to have been awarded to the petitioner. On the same day on which the request of the fourth respondent to furnish the security deposit in instalments was rejected, the third respondent gave Ext.P8 communication to the petitioner requiring to intimate the third respondent as to whether the petitioner is prepared to undertake the work at the rate of Rs.684/- per cubic meter quoted by the fourth respondent. In response to Ext.P8 communication, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 willingness to execute the work at the rate quoted by the fourth respondent. No action was, however, taken on Ext.P9 willingness furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner, in the circumstances, preferred a representation to the Chief Minister of the State complaining about the inaction on the part of the third respondent in awarding the work to him. Ext.P11 is the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Minister. It appears that the said representation has been forwarded to the office of the third respondent and in the light of the same, the third respondent has informed the petitioner that appropriate decision as regards the claim of the petitioner will be taken by the second respondent soon. Ext.P12 is the communication issued by the third respondent in this regard. The writ petition is filed immediately thereafter seeking directions to respondents 2 and 3 to enter into necessary agreement with the petitioner for execution of the work. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that insofar as the highest bidder has not executed the agreement within the time initially stipulated and later enlarged, the petitioner who is the second highest bidder in the bid process ought to have been awarded the work.