C.SANTHOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Social Security Mission is implementing a project called 'Hunger Free City' at Kozhikode. Food is being supplied to about 2500 persons every day under the said project at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and also at the General Hospital, Kozhikode. The petitioner is the contractor engaged by the Social Security Mission on 06.03.2016 for supply of food under the project for the period upto 31.03.2017. Since alternative arrangement could not be made by the Social Security Mission for supply of food after 31.03.2017, the petitioner is permitted to continue the supply of food till a new arrangement is made and he is, accordingly, supplying food under the project on that basis even now. In the meanwhile, the Social Security Mission invited fresh bids for supply of food for the next one year and the petitioner is one among the bidders pursuant to the said invitation. By Ext.P10, the petitioner was informed that complaints have been received from the Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode as regards the quality of the food supplied by the petitioner during the previous year and since the petitioner is the lowest tenderer in the new tender process also, the Social Security Mission has decided to cancel the new tender process and steps will be taken to float a fresh tender. As per the said communication, the petitioner was also informed that he will not be permitted to participate in the fresh tender proposed. It is stated by the petitioner that though Ext.P10 communication is dated 21.6.2017, the same was served on the petitioner only on 11.7.2017. It is also stated by the petitioner that immediately thereupon, a fresh invitation was also made as per Ext.P14 notice. Ext.P10 communication is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in Ext.P14 tender process.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Social Security Mission as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a decision in the nature of Ext.P10 cannot be taken without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. As regards the merits of the decision, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there were complaints against the quality of food supplied by the petitioner, the genuineness of the said complaints has been gone into by the Regional Director of the Social Security Mission and since it was found that there is no basis for the complaints, the petitioner was permitted to supply food even after the expiry of his term.