KERALA WATER AUTHORITY Vs. M.M.VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant(s) is the Kerala Water Authority, which had invited tenders for works to be executed in the Alappuzha Municipality under the Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme For Small & Medium Town. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. The invitation for tender is produced as Exhibit P1 with respect to three separate civil works contract and in the appeal is impugned the judgment of the learned Single Judge which directed the consideration of the financial bid of the petitioners in respect of the works relating to tender Nos.13 and 14. Petitioners having entered into a joint venture, which is permissible under the invitation of tenders, made their financial bid which stood rejected for the reason of the petitioners joint venture having not been technically qualified as per the pre-qualification conditions set out in the tender document. The petitioners prayed for setting aside the rejection of the technical bid submitted by them and sought for consideration of their financial bid. As an alternative prayer, the petitioners had also challenged the addendum notification and the stipulations regarding financial criteria and technical expertise as stipulated in Exhibits P3 and P4 as being illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) WE will first deal with the 2nd prayer. In dealing with the 2nd prayer, we notice that, it is not the case of the petitioners that they were not made aware of the addendum before tender was submitted. Exhibit P6 being the covering letter of the petitioners by which the tender was submitted, specifically noticed the amended conditions brought out as addendum No.II and produced as Exhibit P4. It is further noticed that the learned Single Judge also had rejected the said prayer for reason that this Court cannot be interfering with the tender conditions especially since equal opportunity had been given to all tenderers.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, however, found that clause 2.4.2, as is seen in Exhibit P3 and amended as per Exhibit P4, does not specifically mention experience to be in relation to HDPE pipes. On a reference to Section 5 and also to clause 2.4.2, it was held that even the words employed therein would not lead to a conclusion that the experience and qualification sought for was one confined to HDPE pipes; supply and laying. With respect to the size and length stipulated in Exhibit P4, it was found that the requirement having been reduced to 50% of the size/capacity and 12.5% of the length for the respective works, the petitioners would be qualified. The learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners' experience in respect of Ductile Iron (D.I.) pipes can also be taken into consideration for the purpose of qualification criteria and, therefore, directed consideration of the financial bid of the petitioners with respect to the work relating to the tender Nos.13 and 14.