PARUMALA TRANSPORT Vs. KERALA FEEDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Clause 18(f) of Ext.P3 tender document is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. They are engaged in the business of transportation. The first respondent is a Government of Kerala undertaking engaged in the production of cattle feed. On 31.3.2016, the first respondent invited e -tenders for transportation of their finished products from their plants to the southern and northern regions of Kerala for a period of one year. Ext.P3 is the tender document obtained by the petitioner pursuant to the said tender invitation. Clause 18(f) of Ext.P3 reads thus :

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the impugned condition is necessary for the effective implementation of the transportation contract. It is also contended that the impugned condition was introduced in the year 2009 and till date, no contractor has challenged the same. It is further contended by the first respondent that if the vehicles are not in the name of the firm, the utilization of the same for the work awarded to the firm cannot be ensured. It was also contended by the first respondent that even if clause 18 of Ext.P3 is not insisted, the petitioner will not be eligible to participate in the tender as they have not paid the requisite E.M.D. and that the vehicles owned by the petitioner are not found suitable for the subject work.