M HANEEFA Vs. PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P3. The respondent-Municipality called for tenders for executing the work of metalling of the yard of the New Municipal Bus Stand under construction vide Ext. P2. Tenders were opened on 20.06.2007. Petitioner quoted the lowest rate at 23.1% below estimate cost and the third respondent quoted the next higher rate of 17.6% below the estimate cost. The 10th item in Ext. P3 is in respect of the report of the Secretary on Ext. P2 to reject petitioner's lowest tender and to accept the next higher tender of the third respondent. The petitioner's tender was rejected on the basis of the remark by the second respondent namely the Municipal Engineer to the effect that petitioner has not pledged the earnest money with the Secretary. According to the petitioner, this view arises out of a misapprehension of the true scope of a pledge. A pledge is complete according to the petitioner upon possession being handed over. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the matter is squarely covered by Rule 10(2) of the Kerala Municipality (Execution of Public Works and Purchase of Materials) Rules, 1997. Rule 10(2) reads as follows:

(2.) Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 3. I heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the matter is squarely governed by the terms of the statutory provision, to contend that there is no pledge which appears to be the basis for rejection of the tender of the petitioner, is misplaced and illegal. He would submit that petitioner has made the lowest tender and his tender is accompanied by the originals of National Savings Certificates and in such circumstances it is impermissible to reject the tender on the basis of the remark contained in Ext. P2 made by the second respondent.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that this is a case where there is no valid tender. He further submits that there has to be a pledge and mere production of certificates would not suffice. He would contend that this is a case where having regard to the parameters within which the court will entertain a petition for judicial review, no case has been made by the petitioner. This is because as on the date when the decision was taken by the local body, the tender of the petitioner was accompanied by National Savings Certificate which contained an endorsement on the face of the documents which showed that the certificates are pledged with the State of Kerala. Therefore, he would submit that having regard to the purpose of earnest money deposit being taken in the form of government security, it could not be said that the decision of the local body is in anyway illegal as the very purpose of the earnest money is to see that if the tenderer is not completing the work in terms of the contract, the local body is not put to loss and it can look to recompense from the proceeds of the government security.