IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29240 of 2009(Y)
1. C.M.KUNJU MOHAMAD, CONTRACTOR, NETOOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L.P.G.),
3. THE SYSTEM & SECURITY SERVICES,
4. V.K.RAJU, CONTRACTOR, (HAULAGE, CARTAGE,
5. THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN C.MENON
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No.29240 of 2009 – Y
—————————————-
Dated 28th October, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri.Mohan C. Menon, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing
counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.T.P.M.
Ibrahim Khan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India
for the 5th respondent.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited tenders for
carrying out the work of loading and unloading of cylinders and
for haulage, cartage, clearing and miscellaneous work at their
Calicut plant. In the tender terms and conditions, it is
stipulated that the rates are to be quoted in figures and words
on percentage basis in the price bid. The tenderers were also
cautioned that if the rates are not quoted in words, such offers
will be summarily rejected. It was also stated that tenders
which do not meet the tender conditions are liable to be
rejected.
W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 2
3. Pursuant to the tender notice, the petitioner submitted
that his credential bid and price bid. In the price bid, instead of
quoting the percentage rate offered by him in words and
figures, the petitioner quoted the rate only in figures. This writ
petition is filed contending that as the petitioner’s bid is the
lowest, it ought to have been accepted. It is conceded at the
Bar that shortly after this writ petition was filed, the petitioner’s
bid was rejected on the ground that the percentage rate
quoted by him in the price bid was not mentioned in figures
and words.
4. A copy of the price bid submitted by the petitioner is
produced as Ext.R1 (a) along with the statement filed on behalf
of respondents 1 and 2. Relying on the terms and conditions of
the tender notice, respondents 1 and 2 have stated that the
petitioner’s bid was not in accordance with the tender
conditions and therefore, it was rejected for the reason that the
rate quoted by him was only in figures and not both in words
and figures. The respondents also contend that the stipulation
in the tender notice is that the percentage rate shall be both in
words and figures.
W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 3
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by
the learned counsel appearing on either side. Paragraphs 7
and 8 of the general guidelines forming part of the tender
conditions read as follows:
“7. Rates are to be quoted in figures and words on
percentage basis in the Price Bid (inclusive of all taxes
excluding Service Tax) only under Minus ( – ) % column,
or Plus ( + ) % column.
If rates are quoted under both Plus ( + ) % column
and Minus ( – )% column, offer would be summarily
rejected.
When there is a difference between the rates in
figures and words, the rate quoted in words shall be
accepted.
Service tax paid by the contractor shall be
reimbursed on actual basis subject to production of proof
of payment in originals.
8. If rates are not quoted in words, offer would be
summarily rejected.”
It is thus evident from the general conditions of the tender that
the rate has to be quoted not only in figures but also in words.
It is also stated that if rates are not quoted in words, the offer
will be summarily rejected. In my opinion, the petitioner who
did not admittedly satisfy the tender conditions by quoting in
his price bid, the rate offered by him in words cannot be heard
W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 4
to contend that his bid should be entertained and accepted. It
is to rule out the possibility of any tampering with the rate
quoted in the price bid that the official respondents have
insisted that the rate should be quoted not only in words but
also in figures. This is all the more important for the reason
that the rates can be quoted below the minimum prescribed
and also above the minimum prescribed. In other words, if in
the petitioner’s tender, the rate quoted is minus 5.11
percentage above the tender rate, it is possible for someone
else who is interested in disqualifying the petitioner to convert
it as + 5.11 percentage above the tender rate. It is to avoid
such a possibility that it is insisted that the rates should be
quoted both in words and in figures. The petitioner’s bid did
not admittedly satisfy the said stipulation. I am therefore
persuaded to agree with the official respondents that the
petitioner’s bid was liable to be rejected on that short ground.
Further, if official respondents are given the discretion to
condone such lapses, it can lead to abuse or misuse of such
discretionary power. In a given case, an erring officer of the
Indian Oil Corporation can permit an otherwise invalid tender to
W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 5
be corrected and made valid. That will vitiate the tendering
process. Such a stipulation cannot, in my opinion, be watered
down to enable persons like the petitioner who do not have
submitted their bid in accordance with the tender conditions to
participate in the selection process. I therefore find no reason
to entertain this writ petition.
6. It is brought to my notice that as regards the haulage,
cartage, clearing and miscellaneous work, the respondents are
likely to re-tender the work. I make it clear that
notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition, it will be
open to the petitioner to participate in the re-tender if the work
of haulage, cartage, clearing and miscellaneous work is re-
tendered by the Corporation and nothing contained in this
judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from
participating in such re-tender, if any.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa