KAVERI FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to carry on the business of manufacture and wholesale distribution of organic manures and bio-fertilizers. The petitioner is also manufacturing and wholesale distribution of UV-protected HDPE multi-layer Blow pots, etc., for vegetable cultivation. The fifth respondent, the implementing officer related to agricultural schemes of the Janakeeyasoothranam project of the second respondent published an etender notice dtd. 16/1/2023 inviting tenders for distribution of HDPE Pots, potting mixture, and vegetable seedlings from the Authorised Distributors/Manufacturers/Karshika Karmasena/Agro Service Centre for the year 2023 under the Janakeeyasoothranam project No.1082, 22-23, with Government approved specifications. The tender notice is produced as Ext.P2, according to which the petitioner submitted an e-tender/bid, the acknowledgment of which is produced as Ext.P3.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the fifth respondent had received five tenders. Clause 10 of Ext.P2 stipulates that all conditions of the Store purchase manual of the Government of Kerala dtd. 21/6/2013 of the Local Self Government Department apply to the tender. Ext.P10 store purchase manual mandates follow a two-bid system namely a technical bid/price bid and the bid should be opened only of those vendors who were technically qualified by the department /organisation which the fifth respondent was bound to follow. The petitioner submits that on 8/2/2023, after opening the technical bid, the petitioner received an e-mail from the e-tendering system of the Government of Kerala stating that the petitioner's technical bid was successful. The petitioner contends that he alone was the technically qualified bidder since all the required documents stipulated by the conditions in Ext.P2 were satisfactorily approved and produced only by the petitioner.

(3.) Among the five tenderers, the sixth respondent could not successfully cross the technical bid due to the non-submission of the requisite documents, especially the test reports of the CIPET which assures quality parameters of the pots. It is also the contention of the petitioner that 'M/s.Sowmya Plastics" does not manufacture virgin HDPE products with the brand name "M/s.Sowmya Plastic" with five years of durability and environmental friendliness which is a mandate under Ext.P5. It is also stated that the technical bids are not to be opened prior to the completion of the pre-qualification evaluations, going by the relevant clauses of the Store purchase manual. Under such circumstances, the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was the only bidder who succeeded in the prequalification evaluation, consideration of the other tenders is barred under the provisions of the store purchase manual, Ext.P10. Notwithstanding the above stipulation, the fifth respondent illegally extended an invitation to facilitate the sixth respondent and time was given to produce the test report. A month was granted, as in the initial documents submitted, the sixth respondent did not have any certification regarding the five-year durability and environmental friendliness of the pots which is a prerequisite for considering the technical bid, as evident from Ext.P10. Despite the petitioner being the only qualified tenderer as per Exts.P2 and P5, the sixth respondent was awarded the tender, which is challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner and the sixth respondent were called for negotiation and on the ground that the sixth respondent had quoted a lower rate, the tender was awarded to the sixth respondent. The writ petition challenges the decision taken to award the tender to the sixth respondent and also prays for directing the fifth respondent to grant the tender to the petitioner being the lower successful bidder in the technical bid held on 7/2/2023.