IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35389 of 2009(P)
1. CHODOTH KOYA, CONTRACTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADMINISTRATION OF THE UT OF
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.GANGESH
For Respondent :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :09/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 35389 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 9thday of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
By Ext.P1 tender notice dated 16.9.2009, the third respondent
invited tenders for various items of works. The petitioner submitted his
tender in respect of the work described as item No.6 in Ext.P1 tender
notice. Four other persons had also submitted tenders. The rate quoted
by the petitioner was Rs.300/- below the probable amount of contract.
However, the third respondent rejected all the tenders and decided to
invite a fresh tender. Ext.P2 letter was thereupon sent to the petitioner
informing him that his tender has been rejected. He was also requested
to collect the earnest money deposited by him. The petitioner thereupon
sent Ext.P3 representation to the Administrator of the Union Territory of
Lakshadweep. The petitioner did not challenge Ext.P2 in this Court at that
stage. Later, the third respondent issued Ext.P4 tender notice dated
24.11.2009 inviting fresh tenders for the very same item of work. The last
date for obtaining the tender forms was 7.12.2009 and the last date for
submission of tenders was 10.11.2009. The petitioner did not apply for
tender documents. Instead he sent Ext.P5 letter to the Administrator of
the Union Territory of Lakshadweep requesting him to interfere and cancel
the rejection of his tender. This writ petition was thereafter filed on
8.12.2009 challenging Exts.P2 and P4 and seeking a writ in the nature of
W.P.(C) No. 35389/09
2
mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to accept the tender submitted
by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 in respect of the work described in
serial No.6 therein. The petitioner contends that as his tender was the
lowest, the respondents erred in rejecting his tender. He contends that no
valid reasons whatsoever has been set out in Ext.P2 to reject his tender
and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent to re-tender the work is
arbitrary and illegal.
2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The tender submitted by the
petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 in respect of the work descried in item No.6
therein was rejected and the decision was communicated to him on
7.10.2009. He did not immediately challenge Ext.P2 in this Court. Instead,
he send a letter to the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep
requesting him to award the work to him. The work was re-tendered as
per Ext.P4 notification. Ext.P1 and P2 will show that besides the work
described in item No.6 of Ext.P1 tender notice, the work described in item
No.5 of Ext.P1 was also re-tendered. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
re-tendering has been resorted to solely with a view to eliminate the
petitioner. In my opinion, there is nothing in Ext.P2 which disentitled the
petitioner from participating in the tender pursuant to Ext.P4. However, for
the reasons best known to him, he did not apply for the tender documents.
W.P.(C) No. 35389/09
3
Instead he has chosen to challenge Exts.P2 and P4 in this Court
contending that as his tender was the lowest and below the probable
amount of contract, it ought to have been accepted. It is settled law that
the tendering authority is not bound to accept the tender merely for the
reason that it is the lowest.
3. In such circumstances, as the petitioner had no vested right
for the award of the work. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2. The
tendering authority is the best judge of the situation. In the absence of any
proof that the decision to reject the petitioner’s tender was rested on
extraneous considerations, I find no ground to interfere with the re-
tendering process.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps