C SIVANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an "A" Class contractor, has prayed for issue of a direction to respondents 3 to 7 to supply tender forms to him so as to enable him to participate in the process of submission .of tenders and quote his rates and to consider his, tenders in a just and fair manner by quashing Exts. P 7 to P 9 letters by which his pre-qualification application was rejected. He has also prayed that the selection of eight contractors at the pre-qualification stage to undertake various works should also be quashed.

(2.) The petitioner states that he is a P.W.D. Contactor and had completed a number of major works successfully. Respondents 5 to 7, who are Superintending Engineers of Kallada Irrigation Project, invited pre-qualification applications in January, 1994 for the following works :-

(3.) There were altogether 140 applicants for the above mentioned 8 items of work: But, it is contended that respondents 3 to 7 selected eight contractors of their own choice, who are not competent to execute the said works and rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 7751 of 1994 in this Court challenging the action of the respondents. This Court, by judgment dated 14-6-1994 (Ext. P 6), directed the respondents that in-case the petitioner's application is rejected; the matter may be intimated to him. It was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that by then the applications received relating to the eight items of work had, not been finally considered by the authorities: Pursuant to Ext. P6 judgment, the respondents intimated by Exts. P 7, P 8 and P 9: letters dated 18-2-1995 that his name was riot included in the list of pre-qualified contractors to participate in the tender for the aforesaid works under items 4, 5 and 6. It is further contended that in selecting only eight persons for the execution of the eight items of work, the intention of the respondents is, to allot one item of work to each of the 8 selected applicants after arbitrarily eliminating all other applicants at the pre-qualification stage. The above selection has been secretly made by the respondents and the exclusion of the petitioner, who is more competent and qualified than them, is unjustified and mala fide. The petitioner further states that .he has been pre-qualified by reputed institutions like the Greater Cochin Development Authority; Trivandrum Development Authority, and the International Airport Authority of India. The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Roads and Bridges, South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram has also pre-qualified the petitioner for the work of construction of a new bridge at Enath across Kallada river. This is for the first time that pre-qualification is introduced in works connected with the Kallada Irrigation Project. So far works amounting to Rs.520 cores have already been completed in Kallada Irrigation Project and all the above works were awarded after inviting open tenders. The respondents have split up the works into 8 and have introduced the pre-qualification system only to award the works to persons of their choice on extraneous considerations. The selection has been made by the respondents without considering the merits of each of the applicants. No criteria were prescribed for pre-qualification and no such objective criteria were adopted in the selection process. The exclusion of other eligible candidates will restrict the competition which will lead to quoting of such higher rates than the estimated rates by the pre-qualified applicants. Such a procedure is being adopted to confer an illegal benefit to those eight favoured persons. This will ultimately be an additional burden on the State Exchequer. It is also contended by the petitioner that the action of the respondents in excluding him from the field of consideration and secretly selecting eight persons is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.