IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25191 of 2010(Y)
1. SREE VIGNESWARA PACKS, A PARTNERSHIP
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SC FOR TDB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
P.Bhavadasan, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.25191 of 2010-Y
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010.
Judgment
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This writ petition is filed on 10.8.2010
challenging the decisions reflected by Exts.P4
and P7 resulting in the blacklisting of the
petitioner from supply of containers for packing
Aravana in Sabarimala for three consecutive
years. Ext.P7 is issued making reference to
Ext.P4. Adverting to that, it can be seen that
Ext.P4 was issued with reference to a legal
opinion that the loss, if any, sustained on
account of short supply of cans during the
previous year could be adjusted from the security
deposit or from the bank guarantee after giving
written notice to the petitioner. Indisputably,
the petitioner was not given any further notice
WPC25191/10 -: 2 :-
on the basis of Ext.P4 before issuance of Ext.P7.
Nor was his explanation called for before the
impugned blacklisting.
2.When this writ petition came up for admission,
this Court issued an interim order on 12.8.2010
to the effect that it is not advisable for the
Board to depend on one or two contractors only
for supply of cans for packing Aravana. It was
accordingly directed that the Board will receive
the tender of the petitioner also and process it
and file a report. Following that, the Purchase
Committee considered the offers and placed on
record the report which was considered by us on
7th September, 2010. On 8th September, 2010, orders
were issued to finalise the tentative
apportionment among the four suppliers already
identified. We also directed that the petitioner
be heard by the Board and decision be taken
tentatively. Thereupon, the Board further went
into the matter and has placed its views. The
Board has also filed an additional statement
WPC25191/10 -: 3 :-
through its Secretary. The Board has tentatively
decided that supply orders be given to the four
suppliers identified earlier, i.e., M/s.Creative
Pack, M/s.Jothis Cones, M/s.Moti Packaging
Industries and M/s.Moti Adhesives and that the
remaining 15 lakhs cans be awarded to the
petitioner at the rate of Rs.3.10 per can in
terms of further directions of this Court.
3.As already noticed, the impugned decision to
blacklist the petitioner is rendered on the sole
premise that there was short supply of cans
during the previous year. As noted in our earlier
orders, the fact of the matter remains that the
Aravana Processing Unit was itself set up with
the expertise of the petitioner. It then happened
that the staff of the Board could not by
themselves run the said unit and it required the
assistance of the employees of the petitioner.
Their services were, therefore, diverted for the
purpose of the Aravana Processing Unit. This is
one of the pivotal reasons projected by the
WPC25191/10 -: 4 :-
petitioner for any short fall in the supply of
cans during the previous year. The impugned
decisions Exts.P4 and P7 do not reflect any
ground other than the short supply. In fact, even
going by the opinion that the Board got, the
suggestion was that there could be recovery of
loss, if any, sustained by making appropriate
deductions from the security deposit or bank
guarantee, that too, after appropriate notice and
hearing being extended to the petitioner. We are
clear in our mind that there was really no ground
at all for blacklisting the petitioner and
refusing to accept tenders regarding the supply
of cans for this year also. We may at once notice
that even for the current year, the petitioner is
engaged for the purpose of assisting in the
manufacture and packing of Aravana in the plant
noted above.
4.Having regard to the various contents of the
different statements and the reports, including
that of the Purchase Committee and the views of
WPC25191/10 -: 5 :-
the Board, we are inclined to think that the
petitioner could be granted the opportunity to
supply 15 lakhs of cans at the rate of Rs.3.10
per can, however, on condition that the payment
for such supply would be made only after the
entire supply is effected. This condition is
imposed on the basis of the offer made by the
petitioner through its learned counsel in open
court that it would supply the entire quantity
and would only then take the payment.
In the result, quashing the impugned Ext.P4 and
Ext.P7, we order as above as regards the
allotment of the work of supply of the quantity
of 15 lakhs of cans to the petitioner. The writ
petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
P.Bhavadasan,
Judge.
Sha/1409