BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS C Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was filed by an Association of contractors and certain individual contractors. In the writ petition, their main prayer was against Exts.P11 and P33 Government Orders and the direction sought was to require the State to award public works covered by Exts.P1, P33 and all future works by inviting open tenders. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the works, in respect of which contracts have already been entered into with the 11th respondent/society. Insofar as the cases where contracts have not been entered into, including Ext.P33, the learned Single Judge set aside the awards and Ext.P33 order and directed the State to invite expression or tender or offers either from the contractors generally or from accredited contractors scheduled to Ext.P6 and finalise the proceedings. It is this judgment, which is challenged by the appellants, who are the writ petitioners.

(2.) Before us, the main grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was with respect to the judgment to the extent State has been given liberty to invite tenders from accredited contractors also. According to the learned counsel, the requirements of Article 14 could be satisfied only if the state invites tenders from all contractors giving them equal opportunity, without confining eligibility to accredited contractors.

(3.) True, we agree that equality is the hallmark of Article 14. But, however, when tenders are invited it is for the State to prescribe the qualifying norms. In exercise of that right, the State is entitled also to confine eligibility to accredited contractors and such a system is not objectionable. If the argument that every contractor is entitled to every work is accepted, that will also be disastrous. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention now advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.