C S M TRANSPORTS Vs. KERALA FEEDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent is a Kerala Government undertaking. BY Ext. P6, tenders had been invited from contractors for transport of cattle feeds produced by the company to northern and southern regions from their plant at Kallettumkara. It was for a period of two years. In Ext P6, it had been indicated that it was essential that documentary evidence for pre-qualification for having carried out similar documents were to be produced. It was also a condition that the bidder should have a minimum of ten trucks having valid goods carrier permit, in his own name. The technical bid and the price bid were to be separately submitted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the tender.

(2.) The averment in this original petition is that on 11-9-2001, the pre-qualification tenders are opened. The technical bid showed that there tenders namely the petitioner, second and third respondents were qualified to participate in the price bid. When price bid was opened on 12-9-2001, it was invited for a conference by Ext. P7 does not refer to anything else. But, Ext. P8 shows that the petitioner had agreed to make available the relevant documents in respect of his experience claimed for a verification. Ultimately, by Ext. P9 on 12-10-2001, he had been advised that as the document relating to his experience was found to be fake, he could not have been permitted to participate in the proceedings at all. It was also stated that the bid offered by him could not be considered on account of his lack of satisfying and fulfilling the terms and conditions of technical bid, and hence his technical bid is disqualified and price bid is automatically rejected. The contract thereupon had been awarded to respondents had been awarded to respondents 2 and 3. This is under challenge.

(3.) The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. IN the counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it had been claimed that even at the inception of the proceedings, that is, on 11-9-2001, the petitioner s technical bids were accepted and he was permitted to participate in the price bid only subject to the objections raised by the fellow tenders that he has to be prove his credentials appropriately. Sri. Siri Jagan appearing for the first respondent produced Exts. R1(a) and R1 (b) to show that such endorsements have been made and signed by the persons who were present there, including the petitioner. He also referred to Ext. R1(d), which also contained an endorsement that the price bids were opened on condition that it will be (finality) accepted only after verifying the genuineness of the certificates produced by them. Thus, he submits that the very fact of opening the price bid of the petitioner did not confer him any rights. Taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, he pointed out that though he had been permitted to participate in the price bid it was subject to the condition that he was to satisfy his credentials. He also relies on Ext. P8 which shows that the petitioner had been advised of the requirement for production of sufficient materials to show about his claims and the petitioner has attempted to produce the documents in support of his claims and in fact, the same had been produced. It is his case that on detailed verification, the documents were found not capable of generating confidence and later independent enquiries had been found that the certificates that had been found that the certificates were found on the boarder lines of unreality. He took me through the certificates that had been made available by the petitioner, in an attempt to establish by the petitioner, in an attempt to establish that they had been prepared without care and it prima facie indicated that they had been secured for the purpose pf presentation and the documents did not disclose any real details, on cross verification.