PYLEE PILLAI AND COMPANY Vs. KSEB TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reliefs prayed for in this writ petition are a writ of certiorari quashing me order of the 1st respondent (The Kerala State Electricity Board) dated 7-3-1966 deciding to award the work of construction of a Power Tunnel for the Idukki Hydro Electric Project, to the 4th respondent and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award the contract above mentioned to the petitioners as the lowest tenderers in respect of the work. There is also a prayer for mandamus directing the 1st respondent to frame regulations under S.79(g) of the Indian Electricity Supply Act (Act LIV of 1948) regarding the procedure to be followed in inviting, considering and accepting tenders.

(2.) In respect of the construction of a Power tunnel for the Idukki Hydro Electric Project, tenders were called for by the Chief Engineer (the 3rd respondent), Ext. P. 1 (a) is a copy of the relevant extract from the tender notification. The entire tender notification was made available to me at the hearing. The petitioner and others submitted tenders. There was no controversy at the hearing that the petitioner's tender was subject to certain conditions. The tenders were opened by the third respondent and after evaluation he rated the tender of the Associated contractors represented by the 5th and 6th respondents as the lowest, and the petitioner's as the next in order. As the 5th respondent had no experience in the work, the 3rd respondent decided to award 60 per cent of the work, on difficult terrain to the petitioner and 40 per cent to the Associated Contractors. There was no controversy before me that as the work involved was above Rs. 10,00,000/- the tenders had to be disposed of and finalised by the Electricity Board (1st respondent) after considering the recommendations of the Chief Engineer. The 3rd respondent accordingly submitted his proposals to the 1st respondent. At a meeting of the Board held on 26-2-1966, it was decided to invite fresh tenders for the work. There was another urgent meeting of the Board on 7-3-1966. At the said meeting it was decided to award the contract entirely to the 4th respondent. Ext. R4 dated 8-3-1966, is the copy of the Board's letter sanctioning the award of the contract to the 4th respondent, and Ext. R5 is a copy of the letter from the Secretary to the Board to the 4th respondent intimating the acceptance of his tender.

(3.) The Board's action is challenged on the following grounds by the petitioner's counsel, and his contentions were supported by the Counsel for respondents 5 and 6. In the first place, the 3rd respondent alone was competent to accept the tenders and the Board's interference with, and variation of, the decision of the 3rd respondent was illegal. Secondly, the decision having been taken at the meeting of the Board on 26-2-1966 to invite fresh tenders, the matter was brought up again before the Board on 7-3-1966 without its being included in the agenda at all for the said meeting. Thirdly, while certain directions are seen issued by the Board against the acceptance of tenders with conditions and negotiations with such tenderers, these directions were relaxed, as and when it pleased the Board to do so. Fourthly it was submitted that the decision of the Board to award the contract in favour of the 4th respondent was largely, if not solely, influenced by the wrong statements placed before it by its Chairman (the 2nd respondent) regarding the efficiency and the financial stability of the 4th respondent.