KERALA GOVERNMENT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, REGISTER NO. T/529/1995, P.W.D ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, PMG JN, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 notice inviting tenders, alleging that the same is violative of the PWD Manual as well as Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is a registered Association of Government Electrical Contractors who are registered under the Public Works Department. The 2nd petitioner is a registered Electrical 'A' Class Contractor with the PWD. The 5th respondent has issued Ext.P2 notice inviting tenders from Manufacturers or their Dealers/Distributors who have successfully completed at least one similar work for Government Departments or Public Sector Undertakings/Co-operative Sector in India costing more than Rupees one Crore in a single work during the last 3 years, for the supply and installation of Video Conference Systems in Court Complexes and Prisons across Kerala with a Manufacturer Warranty for 3 years. According to the petitioners, Ext.P2 totally excludes Government Contractors both Civil as well as Electrical, registered under the Public Works Department, limiting the eligibility to quote, to Manufacturers or their National Distributors, Dealers etc. It is pointed out that, the persons who are considered eligible as per Ext.P2 are not registered with the PWD. Nor are they persons over whom the respondents have any sort of control. On the contrary, the registered Contractors under the PWD are persons over whom the Department has got the power to take action by blacklisting and other methods. The present system, according to the petitioners, would only result in creation of a monopoly in favour of the Manufacturers or the Manufacturer who monopolises the field, to the disadvantage of the Government Contractors. The present system would also lead to corruption by permitting the authorities to create a field, where they would be free to deviate from the restrictions imposed by the PWD Manual and to get works executed in any manner that they want, without being subject to any control. Therefore, it is contended that, the entire exercise is arbitrary and discriminatory in so far it excludes the registered Contractors. For the above reason, the same is liable to be set aside, it is contended.

(3.) The contentions of the petitioners are disputed by the respondents pointing out that, the work for which tenders have been invited by Ext.P2 is a specialised item of work that calls for expertise, which the petitioners do not possess. The work of setting up a system of video conferencing is a composite project that has to be undertaken by the Manufacturer. To have the work executed in piecemeal, segregating the civil works and electrical works from the electronic works and getting portions thereof executed through individual Contractors would create a situation where, in the event of failure, each participant in the execution of the work would blame the other and shift responsibility from one to the other to escape liability. Such an exercise would also give room for the various participants in the execution of the work to install low quality components that would impair the efficiency of the system itself. On the other hand, casting the entire responsibility for supply and installation of the Video Conference System on the Manufacturer or his Registered Dealer would ensure that, only original equipments are used and that, the work is undertaken and installed by competent persons under the responsibility of the Manufacturer himself. Only such a system supported by a proper Annual Maintenance Contract would be able to function in a trouble free manner. The present procedure would ensure that, an efficient system of video conferencing is installed throughout the State. It is for the said purpose that, the present system has been chosen by Ext.P2. Therefore, it is contended that, the challenge against the same is without any basis and liable to be rejected. Two counter affidavits have been filed in answer to the various averments in the writ petition supported by documents.