IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 9610 of 2006(R)
1. TISHA NAVIGATION INC; 39/5132,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE
3. THE SENIOR PURCHASE OFFICER, VIKRAM
4. M/S. AMROK INVESTMENTS AND INDUSTRIALS,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/08/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NOs.9610/06& 1222 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST, 2007
JUDGMENT
Both these writ petitions relate to inviting of tenders for the
contract of transport of liquid effluents in tanker lorries, loading the
same in the barges and depositing it at deep sea on behalf of Vikram
Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.9610/06 is an intending tenderer. The petitioner’s contention is
that tender has been awarded to the 4th respondent, who is the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1222/07 without inviting tenders by public
notice. The petitioner would submit that this violates the mandates of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because by this process
respondents 1 to 3 gets tenders only from a selected few of their
choice excluding the other intending tenderers, who may also be
interested in participating in the tender process, if the tenders are
invited by public notice. By virtue of interim orders, the 4th
respondent was originally permitted to continue for the period of
contract up to 31.1.07. Subsequently also the petitioner in W.P.(c)
No.1222/07 continued the work and the period ultimately expired on
29.7.07. He filed W.P.(C)No.1222/07 in view of the inviting of fresh
tenders as per the earlier judgment in W.P.(C)No.9610/06 which was
W.P.(C)nO.9610 & /Con.cases 2
later recalled in R.P.No.1158/06. Now what remains to be decided
is the mode of inviting tenders in future. The only contention raised
by the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre before me is that when they
once invited tenders by public notice only two tenderers participated
and that is why they resorted to closed tenders. I do not
understand the logic behind this contention. It is common
knowledge that more responses would come in if tenders are invited
by public notice. In the case of closed tenders only those persons
to whom the VSSC gives intimation would participate. In such
circumstance, the field of choice would be very limited. They also do
not have any case that they are resorting to closed tenders to see
that only tried and trusted tenderers participate. In the above
circumstance, I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the
VSSC in this matter. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with
the following directions.
2. While inviting tenders hereinafter in addition to the
procedure followed by respondents 1 to 3 in inviting tenders from
tenderers known to them they shall also invite tenders by public
notification in newspapers and consider those tenders also along
with tenders to be received pursuant to the intimation given to
known tenderers. If the petitioner in W.P.(c)No.9610/06 or the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1222/07 also submits tenders, the same
also should be considered in accordance with their eligibility.
W.P.(C)nO.9610 & /Con.cases 3
3. The learned standing counsel for the VSSC would voice an
apprehension that during the interim period of finalization of the
tenders if they are not allowed to continue the work through the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1222/07, they may be put to difficulties
since the effluents would accumulate. The standing counsel also
assures this Court that the tender proceedings would be finalized
within a period of three months. In the above circumstance, I
permit the VSSC to continue with the present arrangement with the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1222/07 purely as an interim measure for a
period of three months.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(C)nO.9610 & /Con.cases 4