S.HARIKUMAR Vs. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The issue raised in the writ petition is with regard to rejection of the tender submitted pursuant to Exhibit P1 tender notice. It is stated that the petitioner and the 4 th respondent alone participated in the tender. The petitioner's tender was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not pre-qualified. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection is on highly technical grounds and that the 4 th respondent is also not qualified since the work tendered was supply of low life-cycle cost high efficient centrifugal pumps with the required specifications and Exhibit P10 would show that the pump offered by the 4th respondent is not as specified in the tender notice. It is further submitted that the experience certificate produced by the 4th respondent did not bear any seal. It is further submitted that the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondent on the basis of the documents produced much later than the date fixed for opening tender was clearly vitiated. It is stated that copy of Exhibit R4(j) letter of rejection was never served on the petitioner and the reasons stated are also not tenable.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that low life-cycle cost pump is a new technology and the tender notice specifically required proof of past experience of completed works within eight years. It is stated that the subject work was initially tendered with due date on 15.6.2017, but no bidders were pre-qualified. Fresh tenders were invited by Exhibit P1 wherein the petitioner and the 4 th respondent participated. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted tender in joint venture with M/s.Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd and M/s.Cecco. It is stated that the petitioner was disqualified since he had failed to produce documentary evidence to prove financial standing, past experience and organizational capacity of the joint venture partners in Q1 to Q8 formats. It is stated that the petitioner has lagged two works of the Water authority and was imposed penalty for intentional delay. It is stated that Clause 7.17.1.2.7 of the notice inviting tender states that a tenderer who has lagged two works shall not be pre-qualified. It is stated that the petitioner has experience in installation of turbine pumps only and it had been made clear that such experience would not be in terms of the tender notification. At paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the pump offered by the 4 th respondent satisfies the hydraulic institute design standards with 90% efficiency and that the manufacturer clarified that the quoted pumps have the sustainable efficiency and also meet the requirements under the tender notification. It is further stated that the authenticity of the experience certificate furnished by the 4th respondent was verified with the certificate issuing authority and was confirmed. It is submitted that there was extreme urgency in the completion of work and the work has been awarded and is on going.