VICTORY PRESS (P) LTD Vs. KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 tender notice dated 14.7.97 and seeking a declaration that they are entitled to be awarded the contract of printing and supply of bus tickets and other allied items pursuant to the tenders opened on 18.3.97. They also seek direction to finalise the proceedings relating to the said tender opened on 18.3.1997 duly reckoning the price preference for small scale industrial units in the State and thus to award the work to them. The First respondent Corporation inviting tenders on 10.7.97 for printing and supply of various items of tickets from the reputed printing presses for a period of 2 years from 1.1.97 to 31.12.98. The last date fixed was 22.8.96. The petitioners submitted their tenders. They were doing the work based on the contract for the last term. The petitioners are conducting small scale industrial units in the State of Kerala. Then the tender was opened it was found out that the third respondent quoted the lowest and the rate quoted by the petitioners were above that. There was price preference in favour of small scale industrial units in the State to the extent of 15%. Therefore the petitioners contended that as the rate quoted by them were within 15% of the rate quoted by the 3rd respondent, they were entitled, in terms of the said price preference, to get the contract. They relied on Clause.38 - A of the Stores Purchase Manual. As per the State Policy enunciated in the Stores Purchase Manual, State Govt. and Public Sector Undertakings shall purchase their stores and accessories from the products of small scale industries within the State, even if their quotation is above 15% from the lowest tenderer. But the second respondent issued a fresh tender notice dated 17.1.1996. There upon the petitioners filed O.P. 2309/97 impugning that tender notice. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext. P1 judgment recording the agreement of the parties, as follows:

(2.) It is contended by the KSRTC that Govt. have issued G O (Ms) / 39/97 / PW & T dated 3.4.97 "exempting KSRTC from the purview of price preference envisaged under Clause.38A of the Kerala Store Purchase Manual". Thus application of the said Manual to the Corporation is an admitted fact. If the tender is finalised in favour of the petitioners there will be huge loss to the first respondent and therefore Govt. have in order to avert the loss, exempted KSRTC from allowing price preference to SSI units. Clarification to Ext. P1 judgment was sought for bringing the new Govt. order to the notice of this Court before finalising the tender. This new order has come into force. More over the KSRTC decided to set up a printing press for printing tickets. Therefore there is no necessity to proceed with the tender directed to be finalised in Ext. P1 judgment. Within two months a press can be established and there is only a short term requirement for printing tickets and it is in the above circumstances that Ext. P4 was issued. There is no necessity to proceed with the long term tender no invited earlier and directed to be finalised in Ext. P1 judgment and as confirmed in Ext. P3 judgment. It is also submitted that in the tender received pursuant to Ext. P4, the rate quoted by the contestants were Rs.537 and 539. This is far below the quotation of the petitioners in the tender which was directed to be finalised by Ext. P1 and the petitioners have not submitted tender pursuant to Ext. P4. Therefore the corporation may be allowed to finalise the tender as per Ext. P4.

(3.) Ext. P1 is the pronouncement of this Court. That had been confirmed in Ext. P3. There was a clear undertaking that 15% concession would be granted to the SSI units in the state. The tender was directed to be finalised on 18.3.97. Admittedly by the first respondent, the alleged exemption from price preference policy was granted to the first respondent only as per order dated 3.4.97. Even if it is a valid order that will be applicable only for the tenders invited subsequent to that. In this case the tender had to be finalised even before that. Therefore the first respondent cannot on the basis of the alleged new order, exempting from the price preference, avoid the petitioners. The 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to act in terms of Ext. P1 as confirmed in Ext. P3. Therefore invitation of tender as seen from Ext. P4 is illegal.