ANISH MARKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is authorised signatory of ANTECH-PRL(JV), Ernakulam, has approached this Court seeking to direct respondents 2 to 5 to forthwith publish the pre-qualification evaluation of the bidders with respect to the work, namely Rehabilitation and Upgradation of Vadayar - Chanthapalam - Mulakkulam Road and Vadayar Kallattippalam - Muttuchira Road in Kottayam District vide Bid No.KSTP/KFW/RKI/PKG-IV/Work/Rd-2 forthwith. The petitioner has also sought to direct the respondents not to award the said work to the 6th respondent who is not pre-qualified for the work.

(2.) The 3rd respondent-Kerala State Transport Project invited bid for the work of Rehabilitation and Upgradation of Vadayar - Chanthapalam - Mulakkulam Road and Vadayar Kallattippalam - Muttuchira Road in Kottayam District vide Bid No.KSTP/KFW/RKI/PKG-IV/Work/Rd-2, for a length of 22.476 Km. The petitioner satisfied Clause 4.2(b) of Ext.P2 which are the qualification and evaluation criteria. The 6th respondent does not have the required experience under Clause 4.2(b), contended the petitioner. The 6th respondent has not produced any documents along with their tender, in proof of their experience.

(3.) When the financial bid was opened, the 6th respondent was found to be in L1 position and the petitioner was L2. The petitioner submits that the 6th respondent does not have requisite experience and respondents 3 to 5 have not provided the pre-qualification documents in the e-procurement portal.