RAJAN Vs. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court challenging the contract awarded in favour of the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext. P1 notification, and seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to award the contract in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent along with others responded to Ext. P1 notification issued by the 1st respondent inviting sealed competitive quotations for providing good conditioned vehicles in the routes mentioned therein for the purpose of conveyance of the employees of the 1st respondent. Clause.13 of Ext. P1 provides that the tenderer will have to submit quotation in the proforma and he should produce "ownership details of the vehicles, copies of the registration certificates and testimonial showing previous experience in similar operations". The tender submitted by the 3rd respondent was lower than the petitioner. When the tenders were opened, it was found that the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent did not contain the particulars of the vehicles owned by him or any experience in the similar line as required in the condition extracted above. It is submitted by the petitioner that he objected to the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent as it did not satisfy the requirements. Therefore, the petitioner bona fide believed that though the rate quoted by him was higher than the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's bid would be accepted. As he was the lowest among the tenderers who satisfied all the tender conditions, the petitioner filed a suit and obtained an interim injunction. That was later vacated on submission by the 1st respondent that the contract had already been awarded to the 3rd respondent. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner approached this court with this original petition.

(2.) Ext. P1 is the notification issued by the 1st respondent. That notification contains several conditions to be satisfied by the tenderers even before submitted the tender. Therefore, every tenderer has to satisfy those conditions, and a person who does not satisfy those conditions has to be excluded. The 1st respondent being a public sector organisation and coming with the purview of Art.12 of the Constitution cannot deviate the norms professed in Ext. P1 with reference to the subject matter therein. First respondent cannot favour any person who did not satisfy the conditions in Ext. P1. Therefore, the issue is whether the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent was proper or not.

(3.) It is an admitted case that the 3rd respondent had not submitted the ownership details of the vehicles, copies of the registration certificates. Those were submitted later and those documents belatedly submitted were taken note of and it was on the basis of such documents that the tender of the 3rd respondent was accepted. It is contended by the Counsel for the 1st respondent that there is no illegality in it.