ATC TELECOM TOWER CORPORATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVA Vs. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION REPRESENTED B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P9 and P10 communications issued by the 1st respondent dated 18.05.2018 and 17.05.2018, whereby the technical bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a Private Limited company and licensed infrastructure provider for telecommunication service providers. First respondent, an instrumentality of the State, has invited tenders as per Exts.P6 and P7 dated 23.02018 and 26.04.2018 inviting quotations from Telecom Infrastructure Provider companies for installation of Telecom Monopole/Tower at 56 locations of the 1st respondent across the State. The invitation of tender was by way of two bid system. Petitioner submitted Technical Bid as well as the Financial Bid in separate covers as is provided under the notification. But the Technical Bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Exts.P9 and P10 on the ground that, the general conditions of contract were not signed by the petitioner and that petitioner has quoted the rates in the Technical Bid.

(3.) According to the petitioner, consequent to Ext.P6 notification, a pre-bid meeting was convened and the participant raised certain queries for which no proper or clear reply could be given by the officials of the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that, the 1st respondent appears to have decided that the tender process pursuant to Ext.P6 notification would stand cancelled. It is also the case of the petitioner that, as per Ext.P7 tender notice, every tenderer should quote for a minimum of 40 locations. As per Ext.P7, the technical bid is to be submitted appended with the seven documents prescribed thereunder. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, petitioner has complied with all requirements that are contemplated under Ext.P7, and there was no requirement therein for signing the general conditions of contract. It is also explained that, since there is a condition in Ext.P7 to quote for minimum 40 locations out of 56 locations alone, petitioner has quoted the price in the technical bid submitted. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the rejection of the tender of the petitioner is without assigning any proper reason, and therefore, arbitrary and illegal.