J. KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. FAHIM TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court has heard the learned advocates for the respective parties in the aforesaid three appeals. All the aforesaid three appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated 25th November, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 1232 of 2011 and all the aforesaid three appeals have been taken up for hearing together.

(2.) IT appears, subsequently the authority concerned issued a tender notice dated 2nd April, 2011, whereby sealed tenders in two bids system were invited from reputed firms/owners having two years experience in the field of catering for running catering canteen on board the Mainland Island vessels viz. M.V. Swaraj Dweep, M.V. Nancowry, M.V. Nicobar, M.V. Akbar and M.V. Harshavardhana. It was further notified that the period of contract will be for one year from the date of acceptance of tender. In response to such tender notice, the appellants in FMA 013 of 2011 and MAT 046 of 2011 and also the writ petitioner/respondent participated in such tender process and submitted their respective technical and financial bids. It appears that the appellants in FMA 013 of 2011 and MAT 046 of 2011 were declared successful and they were awarded their respective contracts in respect of their respective vessels, but the writ petitioner i.e. said M/s Fahim Trading Company was found to be ineligible and not qualified enough to be awarded the catering contract. The writ petitioner was disqualified on the technical bid itself and its financial bid remains unopened. Challenging such tender process, the writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(AN) No. 1232 of 2011.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that once the writ petitioner was allowed to continue as a contractor, the authority concerned was not entitled to refuse the writ petitioner such contract when it submitted tender for the future years. The learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that the authority did not make any distinction as to whether the said Mohd. Saleh had the requisite experience for mainland ship. It appears that it was argued before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the present appellant that since the said Mohd. Saleh would not be able to be personally present on board to run the catering business such catering contract should not be awarded in favour of Mohd. Saleh. The learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that the respondents concerned in the writ petition was unable to show any clause in the terms and conditions to the effect that a successful tenderer must be personally present on board while performing the contract. His Lordship was pleased to come to a conclusion that the said Mohd. Saleh was having requisite experience and he was entitled to compete for the next tender and he was also allowed by the authority to convert his proprietorship firm into a partnership firm and bring in new partners and thus the writ petitioner was not a stranger to the Administration and it was created with the knowledge and consent of the Administration. His Lordship was further pleased to observe that the writ petitioner performed the rest part of the contract in respect of M.V.Chowra and hence His Lordship did not find any reason as to why the writ petitioner should be denied to participate in the financial bid, if it was otherwise eligible to do the same and the ratio decided in the said M/s New Horizons Ltd 's case would squarely apply in the instant case. His Lordship was further pleased to hold that the authority concerned committed illegality in not allowing M/s Fahim Trading Company (writ petitioner) to participate in the financial bid and the process of selection, by exclusion of the writ petitioner, was improper and illegal.