K K BUILDERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K K MOHANDAS S/O K K KUNHIRAMANAGED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the writ petitioner who lost his case before the learned Single Judge. The appellant writ petitioner a builder is conducting his business in a partnership firm at Peravoor in Karmur District He claims to have ISO Certificate and the activities of the petitioner company includes several engineering contracts under Government, Railways, Local Authorities etc. The 4th respondent herein invited tenders for Riding Quality Improvement and Management (RQIM) works for roads in Package IV under contract No. KSTP/RQI & M4 and for maintenance of Thalassery-Valavupara Road bearing contract No. KSTP-MC-02 (0/600 to 55/127) as per Exts. P-8 and P-9. The norms prescribed in the tender notifications according to the petitioner are arbitrary and rather not sustainable because the tender notification dated 15-11-2011 consists of four different contracts and again each of them having three to four different road works situated in different districts at a distance of 100 to 150 kilometers away from each other. Similarly the tender notification dated 29-11-2011 indicating pre-qualification norms to award tenders are excessive. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, these conditions imposed by the 4th respondent while issuing Exts. P-8 and P-9 are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable as the said notifications totally ignore the hardships and difficulties faced by the contractors in carrying out the contracts at altogether different places. Contending that the insistence of very qualification norms are not legal and fair, the appellant/writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The learned Single Judge placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No. 1986 of 2011 dismissed the writ petition following the judgment in appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.

(3.) According to the appellant, the pre-qualification norms prescribed in the notifications indicated that the contractor should have satisfactorily completed as a prime contractor at least one work of value of not less than Rs. 140 million where the value of work is Rs. 176 million. This is with regard to KSTP-MC-02. Similarly with regard to other works, such imposition of pre-qualification would automatically exclude many of the contractors like the appellant from tender process on account of huge amounts involved. This is nothing but an arbitrary method adopted by the 4th respondent to restrain average contractors in order to favour some of the high level contractors to obtain the tender. Therefore, according to the appellant, the tender notification lacks bona fides and merits. Contending that unless this Court interferes under Article 226, there is no other remedy efficacious and speedy remedy for the appellant Company, they have approached this Court.