Central Engineering Company vs Director Of Civil Supplies And Ors

The allegation of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is disqualified for participating in tenders floated by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The petitioner on such allegation seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Declare that 5th respondent participating in the tender process invited by the Kerala State Seed Development Authority (KSSDA) as per Ext.P1 notice dated 18.06.2020 for transportation of Paddy seeds without disclosing material information is illegal.

(ii) Declare that 5th respondent participating in the tender process initiated by Supplyco by Ext.P2 notice for transportation and handling of food grains and ration articles, either directly or through name-name lenders (Benamies) by forming business cartel is illegal.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to take appropriate action to prevent the participation of 5th respondent in the tender process initiated by Exts.P1 and P2 tender notices, either directly or through name-name lenders (Benamies) by forming business cartel and award of contract to 5th respondent or his Benamies.

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to proceed with the tender process initiated as per Ext.P1 notice after excluding the 5th respondent."

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that Ext.P1 tender has been cancelled and Ext.P6 tender was floated thereafter. As far as Ext.P6 tender is concerned, the 5th respondent is not disqualified and after considering all bids, tender has already been awarded to the 5th respondent. The award of tender to the 5th respondent is not under challenge in this writ petition and therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous to that extent.

Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 5th respondent has not participated in the tenders pursuant to Ext.P2 notification. Therefore, no relief against the 5th respondent can be granted as far as tenders invited pursuant to Ext.P2 is concerned.

Learned counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that his disqualification is no more subsisting and he is entitled to participate in all the tenders floated by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

In view of the fact that the 5th respondent has not participated in tenders pursuant to Ext.P2 notification of the 2nd respondent, no relief is liable to be granted to the petitioner in that regard. As far as Ext.P6 tender floated by the 3rd respondent is concerned, now that since the tender has already been awarded to the 5th respondent, the petitioner may have to challenge the said award, if he is so advised.

In the circumstances, nothing survives in this writ petition to be adjudicated. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.