T J SIMON, CONTRACTOR Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the 3 rd and 1 st respondents respectively dated 28.12.2016 and 30.12.2016, whereby the tender invited as per Ext.P1 was cancelled and directed to re-tender the works, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioners are registered contractors with Kerala Water Authority. The 4 th respondent issued Electronic tender notice as per Ext.P1 dated 15.11.2016, inviting tenders for the 28 items of work. Petitioners participated in the tender and they became the lowest tenderers in respect of three separate works viz., Sl.Nos.8, 5 and 18 in Ext.P1 tender notice. The bids were opened in the presence of the contractors. According to the petitioners, they signed in the register accepting that they are the lowest tenderers. The 4 th respondent issued Exts.P2 and P4 letters to petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, calling upon them to reduce the rates to a reasonable level. In response to the said letters, the said petitioners issued Exts.P3 and P5 dated 13.12.2016, expressing readiness for negotiation and stated that they are ready to undertake the work at 10% above the estimated rates. A similar letter was issued to the 3 rd petitioner also, which was replied in the same manner as that of the communication issued by petitioners 1 and 2.

(3.) It is the submission of the petitioners that they are having sufficient experience in executing the work for the 4 th respondent, and they were awaiting work orders from the respondents. While so, two contractors who failed to satisfy the tender qualifications and also failed to satisfy the experience criteria, submitted complaints against the tenders submitted by the petitioners and other contractors. However, under the influence of the above said contractors, 4 th respondent submitted a report to the 3 rd respondent. Based on the above report, the 3 rd respondent found that two offers submitted by one Aneesh and Anirudhan were below the estimated rates. But, those two offers were not accepted since they have not complied with the Special Condition No.5 to the effect that a certificate from the Assistant Engineer through Assistant Executive Engineer of Kerala Water Authority shall be obtained recording his previous experience in running contract works, or he has executed 4 pipeline works in the last year under the Division in question. Because of the said condition, 3 rd respondent found that more offers are not obtained. Accordingly, 3 rd respondent recommended to cancel all the tenders pursuant to Ext.P1, and further, 4 th respondent was directed to re-tender the works by modifying the special condition as specified above. It was thereupon that 3 rd respondent reported to the 1 st respondent, recommending the cancellation of tenders, evident from Ext.P6. Based on Ext.P6, 1 st respondent issued Ext.P7 order, cancelling Ext.P1 tender and directing to re-tender the works. It is thus challenging Exts.P6 and P7, this writ petition is filed.