R.VISWANATHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN Vs STATE OF KERALA

The petitioner is a contractor. The third respondent

Grama Panchayat has invited tenders for execution of two civil

works. Ext.P1 is the invitation. The petitioner and the

additional fifth respondent participated in Ext.P1 tender

process. For work No.1 referred to in Ext.P1, the petitioner as

also the additional fifth respondent quoted the estimate rate

and for work No.2, the petitioner quoted 0.99% below the

estimate rate the additional fifth respondent quoted 1% below

the estimate rate. The Panchayat, however, cancelled the said

tender process and invited tenders afresh for the very same

works. Ext.P3 is the notice inviting fresh tenders. According to

the petitioner, Ext.P3 invitation is vitiated by mala fides as the

same is issued with a view to award both the works to the

additional fifth respondent, as the Panchayat cannot otherwise

do so, in the light of the lower tender submitted by the

petitioner in respect of work No.2. It is alleged by the petitioner

that both the works have been awarded by the Panchayat to

the additional additional fifth respondent as planned in the re-

tender. The petitioner therefore, seeks directions to the

Panchayat to finalise the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1

invitation.

A statement had been filed on behalf of the

Panchayat initially. Later, a detailed counter affidavit was also

filed by the Panchayat. The stand taken by the Panchayat in

the statement as also in the counter affidavit is that the

Panchayat Committee, on consideration of the bids submitted

by the petitioner and the additional additional fifth respondent,

entertained a doubt as to whether the bids have been

submitted by the petitioner and the additional fifth respondent

in collusion, and the decision to invite fresh bids was taken on

account of the said reason.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel for the Panchayat as also the learned counsel

for the additional additional fifth respondent.

Ext.R2(c) is the decision taken by the Panchayat

on 30.3.2017 pertaining to the bids received pursuant to Ext.P1

invitation. The relevant portion of Ext.R2(c) reads thus :

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

When an awarder feels that the participants in a tender

process have colluded and competitive offers have

consequently not come for execution of works, it is always open

to the awarder to invite fresh bids. In the said view of the

matter, according to me, there is nothing wrong in Ext.R2(c)  decision taken by the Panchayat. It is all the more so since

Ext.R2(c) is a decision unanimously taken by all the members of

the Panchayat Committee except its President.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends

that the materials on record indicate that the earlier tender

process was cancelled solely for the purpose of awarding the

works to the additional additional fifth respondent. Going by

Ext.R2(c) decision, I do not think that such an inference can be

made from the materials on record.

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of

merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.