COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Society. The petitioner took part in a tender process invited by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation for the purpose of doing the job of sticking holographic security labels on the caps of liquor bottles at the warehouse of the 3rd respondent Corporation at Thodupuzha. The conditions of the tender is prescribed in Ext. P1. The petitioner submits that they alone have complied with all the conditions and therefore entitled for the award of the contract. They rely on Ext. P3 remarks column to substantiate their case. However ignoring the claim, the work was awarded to the 5th respondent Society. It is averred that the 5th respondent society has not complied with condition No. 2(4).

(2.) THE Beverages Corporation has filed a statement. It is stated that the petitioner and the 5th respondent and others are all eligible to take part in the tender process and on account of the equal rate quoted by all the participants, the Corporation was constrained to take a draw by lots and the 5th respondent has won the lot. The 5th respondent points out that the petitioner society have not complied with condition No. 2(3). According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner society have no experience in the same business. The 5th respondent also points out the suggestions in Ext. P3 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner unit is a new entry seeking a job opportunity. The petitioner also has no claim that they have previous experience. Therefore merely because of a remarks column endorsed that petitioner satisfies all conditions does not enable the petitioner to claim that they have satisfied with all conditions. It seems all the tenders submitted by all the bidders suffered from minor defects. These defects are not material or fundamental to disqualify the bidders. Perhaps these reasons prompted the Corporation to accept the bid submitted by all the bidders and considering that all of them have quoted the same rate to select a bidder by a lot. This Court is only concerned about decision making process adopted by the Corporation. I do not find any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. All bidders were treated equally. Therefore the petitioner cannot make any complaint regarding awarding of the contract to the 5th respondent. I do not find any reason to interfere in this matter, accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.