IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37478 of 2009(D)
1. M/S.GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS, MANNAETH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL XAVIER
For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 37478 OF 2009 (D)
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, a contractor, submitted his bid in response to
a notice inviting bids published by the 2nd respondent Municipality
for private sector participation in the implementation,
construction, operation and maintenance of E.K.Nayanar Memorial
Bus Terminal Complex at Kunnamkulam, Thrissur. He was the
only bidder and the Municipal Council recommended to accept the
bid and the bid was submitted to the Government for approval. It
is stated that as per Ext.P8, the minutes of the meeting of the
High Level committee on private sector participation in the
implementation of projects in the Local Self Government
Institutions, the Committee decided that the Municipality should
re-tender the project specifying the pre-bid discussion date since
the bid received was not a competitive one and that complaints
were received alleging procedural irregularities. On receipt of
Ext.P8, by Ext.P7, the Municipality informed the petitioner about
the decision of the Committee and that the matter is pending
consideration.
WPC 37478/09
:2 :
2. In this writ petition, what the petitioner submits is that
they having submitted the bid, which was attractive and
acceptable to the Municipality, the Municipality should take a final
decision pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8. According to the petitioner,
delay in finalising the bid will affect the economic viability of the
offer submitted.
3. Counsel for the Municipality agrees that in its
assessment, the bid received from the petitioner was an
attractive and acceptable one. It is stated that on receipt of
Ext.P8, reiterating its earlier view that the bid is worth
acceptance, the Municipality has sought a review of Ext.P8
decision by moving the Committee itself and also filed an appeal
to the Minister concerned. It is stated that it was therefore that it
is unable to take a final decision in this matter.
4. As already seen, Ext.P8 reflects a decision of the
Committee that the Municipality should go in for fresh tenders.
Therefore, unless that decision is reviewed and approval is
granted, Municipality will not be in a position to take a final
decision in this matter. At this stage, this Court will not be justified
in directing the Municipality to take a final decision to accept or
WPC 37478/09
:3 :
reject the bid of the petitioner. Therefore, a direction requiring the
Municipality to take a final decision cannot be issued. Be that as
it may, it is a fact that if the decision is inordinately delayed, that
will certainly have financial implications as far as the petitioner is
concerned, particularly when they say that the concession period
is much less as compared to similar contracts which have been
entered into by Local Self Government Institutions for similar
projects. Therefore, Municipality is directed to ensure that the
decision by the 1st respondent is expedited, and on that basis,
take a final decision on the offer made by the petitioner. This shall
be done, as expeditiously as possible.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp