RAJESH C Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent issued Ext. P2 tender notice inviting tenders for conducting an ice cream parlour in the building in Vijaya Park belonging to the Alappuzha Jilla Tourism Promotion Council. The petitioner, who is the existing contractor for running the same, participated in the tender along with four others. The petitioner was the third highest tenderer. But the highest two tenderers withdrew their offers forfeiting their earnest money deposits. Consequently, the petitioner became the remaining highest tenderer. But the petitioner's tender was not accepted. The 2nd respondent invited the remaining three including the petitioner for a negotiation. All the three were directed to submit fresh quotations. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a letter requesting for more time to take a decision. But, by Ext. P4 letter dated 17/02/2012, the petitioner was informed that he should vacate the ice cream parlour, since the tender has been awarded to the 4th respondent. It is challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The 2nd respondent has filed a counter - affidavit, wherein the stand now taken is that subsequent to the opening of the tenders, the 7th respondent herein submitted Ext. R2(b) letter offering Rs.1500/- more than the highest tender received. In the above circumstances, all the three were invited for a negotiation on 17/02/2012 and in the meeting, all the three were directed to submit sealed quotations. According to the 2nd respondent, all the three submitted sealed quotations. In the same, the 4th respondent quoted Rs.18 lakhs, which was the highest. In the cover submitted by the petitioner, Ext. R2(c) letter was found, where the petitioner requested for time till 22/02/2012 for quoting the amount. Since the earlier contact with the petitioner was ending on 16/02/2012, it was decided to accept the highest tender of the 4th respondent and the contract was awarded to the 4th respondent, is the contention raised. According to them, the entire process was very transparent and there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory insofar as all the three were given equal opportunity to submit higher tenders.

(3.) The 4th respondent has filed a counter - affidavit stating that the contract has been awarded to the 4th respondent and an agreement has already been executed. He would contend that there is a concluded contract, which cannot now be set aside. He also supports the contention of the 2nd respondent. He would further state that the petitioner is part of a caucus, who would in collusion with others submit different tenders and the highest tenderer would withdraw after the tenders are opened leaving the field to the petitioner for a much lower amount. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent has decided to conduct negotiations with the remaining tenderers, which has been done in the best interest of the institution, is the contention raised.