PALATHRA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging rejection of petitioner's tender and also seeking a direction to quash Exhibit P11 Circular dated 01.08.2012 issued by the Government of Kerala Public Works [E] Department. The petitioner submitted his tender pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification in respect of construction of Mundakayam Bye Pass. In Exhibit P10, the reason stated for rejection is that "single tender above estimate rate".

(2.) THE petitioner would submit that a tender cannot be rejected merely on the reason that "single tender above estimate rate". In Exhibit P11 Circular, it is permitted that single bid can be accepted on exceptional circumstances and the rejection is bad without showing that there are no exceptional circumstances. The petitioner also points out that Exhibit P11 Circular relied on by the respondents to reject petitioner's tender was issued in the year 2012 before evolving on -line e -tender and the present tender is only on 05.05.2014 after implementation of e -tender to process. Therefore, Exhibit P11 has no application.

(3.) THE decision in the public administration rejecting a tender based on a Circular cannot be interfered by this Court invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless decisions result in arbitrariness and cannot stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The reason stated for rejection is "single tender and above estimate rate". This Court cannot direct respondents to accept the petitioner's tender, merely because there is only a single tender. The parameters of consideration for accepting a single tender is given in Exhibit P11. This is for the authority to decide the manner in which a single tender has to be accepted. Whether there is exist any exceptional circumstance warranting the acceptance of the petitioner's tender, is a matter governing the decision for award of work. But it cannot be claimed by a tender as a matter of right. Those are the matters within the public policy and in the realm of the governance to determine existence of exceptional circumstances. Such enabling power to assess exceptional circumstances will not confer a right to a person who responds to a notification by submitting tender for award of the work. If that be so, the rejection is justified in the light of Exhibit P11.