K K KUNHI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents not to award the work mentioned as Sl.No.3 in Ext.P1 to anybody, without considering the lowest bid of the petitioner, and for other consequential reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a Government contractor having experience of more than 20 years as a contractor under the Lakshadweep Public Works Department. It is also submitted that, petitioner had undertaken several major and minor projects under the Lakshadweep P.W.D, and completed the same within the time stipulated. Petitioner has got repute for the quality of work which he has done earlier in the Islands, evident from Exts.P3 and P4 certificates. A tender was invited by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 notification dated 21.06.2016. Petitioner participated in the tender process. The estimate cost for the said work was Rs.72, 22, 989/-. The tender conditions are produced as Ext.P According to the petitioner, as per the tender conditions, the eligibility criteria fixed as condition No.1.1(b) is that the person who had undertaken similar works each of value not less than 40% of the estimated cost, or two similar works each of value not less than 60% of the estimated cost or one similar cost of work not less than 80% of the estimated cost in last 7 years. Petitioner had the qualifications since he had completed the work of construction of power house at Chetlath Islands on 06.08.2009 having an estimate of Rs.61, 04, 815/-, evident from Ext.P3. Petitioner has also completed the construction work of J.B. School at Amini on 26.06.2008 with a cost of Rs.42, 08, 292/-, evident from Ext.P4. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to secure the work.

(3.) Anyhow, petitioner was awaiting to get the work awarded, and when he found that there is no communication from the office of the 4th respondent, he contacted the 4th respondent and he was told that the tender submitted by him will not be accepted and is going to be disqualified. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted a representation against the rejection of tender before the 1st respondent, evident from Ext.P5. However, no action was initiated on account of Ext.P5 representation. Again, petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 1st respondent and in spite of the same, there was no action. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.