VIGNESWARA PACKS Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short prelude is profitable for a proper disposal of the captioned writ petition. The expression "blacklist" means a list of persons or firms against whom its compiler would warn the public, or some section of the public; a list of persons unworthy of credit, or with whom it is not advisable to make contracts. Thus, it is obvious that blacklisting a person or a firm would undoubtedly send the signal to the public that it is advisable to abstain from trading with the person/firm blacklisted. When that be the impact of blacklisting such an action against any person or a firm should be made only in a situation where it is inescapably inevitable.

(2.) In the case on hand the petitioner, which is a partnership firm called Sree Vigneswara Packs (SV Packs), responded to a notification dated 17.5.2018 issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board (for short 'TDB') for supply of Composite Cans of the description size, quality, quantity specified therein for the use of Sabarimala Devaswom under the administration of Travancore Devaswom Board during Mandalam, Makaravilakku and Meda Vishu of 1194 ME (2018-'19). The e-tenders submitted by the petitioner and 4 others were opened on 8.6.2018 and thereupon the petitioner and another firm by name M/s.Jyothis Cones, Aluva, who quoted Rs.5.87 per can, were classified as "L1". The total number of Cans to be supplied based on the notification was 180 lakhs. The petitioner and Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil, the proprietor of M/s. Jyothis Cones were invited for negotiation on 18.7.2018 and they were asked to submit the final rate which they could offer, in writing on a foolscap paper. Based on such negotiation TDB took a decision to award the tender for supply of the entire Composite Cans to Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner herein filed W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018. The said Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.29176 of 2018 seeking a direction to the TDB to award work order for supply of Composite Cans to him contending that even after accepting his tender and notifying the same no further action had been taken. Both the said writ petitions were jointly heard and they were disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 14.9.2018. As per Ext.P1, the TDB was directed to call the petitioners therein for open negotiation in the presence of all the three members of the Board and the Secretary/Commissioner of the Board, on a date to be notified to the parties by registered post with acknowledgment due. Pursuant to Ext.P1, an open negotiation was conducted on 3.10.2018 and the petitioner quoted the lowest rate of Rs.4.40 per can. In short, after the open negotiation, he became the successful bidder and consequently, he was classified as 'L1' Virtually, the series of events which ultimately culminated in this dispute commenced after the said stage.

(3.) The Mandala-Makaravilakku festival for 1194 M.E. started from 15.11.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that even after the open negotiation held on 30.10.2018 the TDB did not take any follow up action in time and notify its finalisation authentically. It is also its case that Ext.P2 work order dated 30.10.2018 issued by the first respondent was received only on 8.11.2018 and that apart in Ext.P2 work order no schedule for supply of Composite Cans was given though it mentioned about the number of Composite Cans to be supplied viz., as 1,80,00,000 (One Crore Eighty Lakhs only). Thereafter, Ext.P3 dated 9.11.2018 was issued requiring the petitioner to supply 50% of the required quantity of cans viz., 90 lakhs cans, on or before 20.11.2018 and to supply the balance before 30.11.2018. Finding it impossible to supply such a huge quantity of Composite Cans in short notice the Managing Partner submitted Ext.R1(d) representation expressing his readiness to supply 20 Lakhs cans on or before 20.11.2018 and balance as per the needs. It is its further case that without any further notice the Board cancelled the tender confirmed in its name as per Ext.P4 dated 19.11.2018. As a matter of fact, on perusal, we find that even under Ext.P4, the petitioner was required to supply the cans. In Ext.P4, it is stated thus:-