High Court of KeralaWP(C)/10927/2015disposed of

E.M.Radhakrishnan v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd

2015-04-06Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/16TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10927 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- E.M.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.E.K.MUKUNDAN, RESIDING AT ELLATH HOUSE, KUMBALAM ERNAKULAM-682 506.

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD VYDUTHY BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, TRIVANDRUM-695 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENIGNEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY-682 033.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENIGNEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD TRANSMISSION DIVISIN, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENIGNEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, SUB DIVISION 110 KV SUB STATION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017.

5. SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.NOT KNOWN, CONTRACTOR, VATTEKKUNNAM EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024.

R1-4 BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 10927 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1.

TRUE THE WORK ORDER NO.38/12-13 DATED 14/1/2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2.

TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.37/13-14 DATED 11/2/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3.

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARING NO.DB40(A)/14-15/974 DATED 16/2/2015 EXTENDING THE PERIOD FROM 18/2/2015 TO 31/3/2015. EXT.P4.

TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 5/3/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 10927 of 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction and thereby command the respondents 2 to 4 to allot the work tendered as per Ext. P4 to the petitioner since he has been conducting the work since 2010 onwards and he being the lowest among the amount quoted by the contractors participated in the auction.

(ii) Issue aw writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ or order or direction and thereby command the respondents 2 to 4 not to accept the tender submitted th respondent quoting higher amount than the by the 5 petitioner and confirm the work in his name in blatant violation of the procedures prescribed under the auction notice and if any such allotment is to be cancelled. iii) Grant such other reliefs which are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

W.P.(C) No. 10927 of 2015 : 2 :

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner actually quoted 47.1 % below the estimated rate and hence happened to be lowest among the bids submitted in response to Ext.P1 tender notice. As against Ext. P1, the 5th respondent only quoted 39.5 % below the estimated rate and the work has been awarded to 5th respondent. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, who submits, on instructions, that as per the tender conditions, intending bidder had to submit the EMD along with the documents showing three years experience and a bounden agreement in stamp paper . As far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not submitted bounden agreement as prescribed in Ext. P4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that agreement can be executed only after the work is allotted and as such the said defect cannot be a material one. But the fact remains that no stamp paper was produced by the petitioner and the bid submitted by the 5th respondent is stated as accepted and an agreement has already been executed, as pointed out by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board.

W.P.(C) No. 10927 of 2015 : 3 :

4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that in so far as tender conditions are not fully satisfied by the petitioner, this is not a fit case to call for interference. However the petitioner is set at liberty to pursue the matter, if at all any vested right is infringed in any manner, by way of appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.

Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd