V.A. MUHAMMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 16084 of 1993 dated 17-2-1994 dismissing the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is filed as public interest litigation seeking a declaration against the fourth respondent that he is not eligible to submit his tender for the work of construction of building for Government Polytechnic at Palai.

(2.) Having regard to the value of the work, the Government initially was to keep the tenders open only to pre qualified contractors. The learned Single Judge found that there were nine pre qualified contractors who could have applied, but only two of them applied. The learned Single Judge also found that according to Ext. R2(a) dated 7-7-1987, there should be minimum of four pre qualified contractors to ensure fair and reasonable competition or in the alternative open tender system could be resorted to. In the present case, inasmuch as only two pre qualified contractors had submitted their tenders, the Government proceeded to opt for the alternative method of open tender system. The learned Single Judge therefore found that there was nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the procedure followed by the Government. The petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that this procedure was being followed only to benefit the fourth respondent, who is the son of a retired Engineer. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention on the ground that the tenders are yet to be finalised on the basis of the open tender system and the petitioner could not question the same at this juncture. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) We are in entire agreement with the learned Single Judge. The Government initially followed the normal procedure of restricting to pre qualified contractors. But inasmuch as only two out of nine came forward with their tenders, and the Rule required atleast a minimum of four pre qualified contractors to offer tenders, the Government could not restrict the tenders to pre qualified contractors and they followed the alternative method of open tender system. Ext. R2(a) dated 7-7-1987 required at least a minimum of four pre qualified contractors to participate in a tender restricted to pre qualified contractors. The Government, cannot therefore be faulted for opting for the alternative method of open tender system. So far as the contention that the open tender system is being followed to benefit the fourth respondent is concerned, it is only the petitioner's imagination. The tenders are yet to be finalised, and it is only thereafter that the result will be announced.