IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22512 of 2010(L)
1. K.O.JOSE, S/O.OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.22512 of 2010 (L)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a contractor. By Ext.P1 electronic tender notice
dated 23/11/2009, the respondent Authority invited tenders for
the work of Augmentation of WSS Kumarakom and Thiruvarppu
Panchayats in Kottayam District. Among other details provided in
Ext.P1, it was specified that those who submitted e-tenders should
also submit hard copies of contents on technical bid on the tender
opening day. The technical bids were opened at 2 pm on
22/06/2010. Going by the counter affidavit filed, the petitioner
submitted hard copies as required in Ext.P1 tender notice at 4.15
pm on 22/06/2010. On the ground that the petitioner did not
submit the hard copies before the technical bids were opened at 2
pm on 22/06/2010, he was informed by Ext.P4 that his tender will
not be considered. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition
has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 and to direct the
respondents to accept the hard copies of contents in cover A and B
WP(C) No.22512/2010
-2-
and consider the tender submitted by the petitioner.
2. In the counter affidavit filed, although the respondents
accepted that the petitioner is an eligible tenderer, as already
mentioned above, the reason for rejection is stated to be the
belated submission of hard copies, in as much as the same were
submitted only at 4.15 pm on 22/06/2010 and not before 1 pm on
that day.
3. The correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Water
Authority in rejecting the tender of the petitioner for the reason that
hard copies were submitted belatedly, depends upon the terms of
Ext.P1 electronic tender notice. As per the terms of Ext.P1, the
tenderers are required to submit hard copies of contents of cover A
& B on the technical bid opening day. There is no requirement that
the hard copies should be submitted before any specified time or
even before the expiry of the time specified for tender closing. In
such circumstances, if a tenderer had submitted hard copies on the
day on which the technical bids are opened that will be sufficient
compliance of Ext.P1 tender notice. Admittedly, the petitioner
submitted hard copies on 22/06/2010 itself. If that be so, there is
WP(C) No.22512/2010
-3-
sufficient compliance of Ext.P1 tender notice.
4. Learned standing counsel for the respondents relied on
clause 7 of Ext.P6 and contended that tender should have been
submitted not later than 1 pm on 22/06/2010 and that therefore,
the bids submitted by the petitioner should be taken as belatedly. I
am not persuaded to accept this contention for the reason that this
provision does not deal with the submission of hard copies by those
contractors who have submitted their tenders by e-mail. In that
view of the matter, the rejection of the petitioner’s tender cannot be
upheld and Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside and I do so.
According to the learned standing counsel, the bids are now
pending consideration of the Board of the 1st respondent. Now that
the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is held illegal, it is directed that
the technical bid submitted by the petitioner will be evaluated and
forwarded to the Board, which shall consider the bid submitted
along with the bids submitted by other tenderers.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg