Southern Dredging Company (P) Limited vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“i. Declare that the benefits granted to Micro Small Medium Enterprises under the MSME Act is binding on all contractual works (services) intended to be done by the State Government.

ii. issue a writ of certiorari or such other writs, order or direction, quashing Exhibit P10 communication cancelling Exhibit P7 and P6 tenders dated 1.6.2023 for maintenance dredging of Puthiyappa fishing harbour-General Civil Work and Dredging of Koyilandy Fishing Harbour.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writs, order or direction directing the third and second respondent to award the contract for which tenders were called on 1.6.2023 and 13.04.2023 to the petitioner if it is found eligible otherwise.

iv. to grant such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper.”[SIC]

The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to declare that the benefits granted to Micro Small Medium Enterprises under the MSME Act is binding on all contractual works (services) intended to be done by the State Government. The second prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue direction for quashing Exhibit P10 communication cancelling Exts. P7 and P6 tenders dated 1.6.2023 for maintenance dredging of Puthiyappa fishing harbour-General Civil Work and Dredging of Koyilandy Fishing Harbour.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

When this Writ Petition came up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes me to Ext.P9, in which there was a direction to the petitioner to appear for hearing on 21.06.2023. But, without giving an opportunity of hearing, Ext.P10 is passed cancelling the tender is the submission.

The Government Pleader submitted that the re-tender proceedings have already been initiated regarding Ext.P5. As far as Exts.P6 and P7 the petitioner is not the lowest tenderer is the submission. It is also submitted that the respondents initiated re-tender proceedings in Exts.P6 and P7.

After hearing both sides, I think the main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing Ext.P10 order, even though Ext.P9 hearing notice is issued. In these circumstances, I think the petitioner can be allowed to submit a representation, narrating his grievance raised in this Writ Petition and there can be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the same and re-tender proceedings will be subject to the result of that representation.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

i. The petitioner is free to submit a representation narrating his grievance before the 3rd respondent within two days from today.

ii. Once such a representation along with a copy of this Writ Petition with a certified copy of this judgment is received, the 3rd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of the representation.

iii. The re-tender proceedings will be subject to the result of the final decision in the representation.