Sulfikerali PP vs State Of Kerala

Shaji P.Chaly, J

Petitioners are holding civil contractors licence duly issued by the Government. Third respondent i.e., Kalikavu Grama Panchayat, Malappuram District, had invited tender for various works in the Panchayat to be executed through accredited agencies, evident from Exhibit P1 tender notice dated 6.12.2022. According to the petitioners, as per Exhibit P1, the 2nd respondent herein was selected as the Project Management Consultant to execute the work.

Aggrieved by Exhibit P1, the Association of Contractors has filed W.P.© No.2404 of 2023 against executing works through the Project Management Consultants. However, no interim order was granted by this Court in the said writ petition. Consequent to which, the 2nd respondent i.e., the Forest Industries (Travancore) Limited, Aluva, has issued tender inviting bid from contractors on 17.2.2023, evident from Exhibit P2. According to the petitioners, the eligibility conditions fixed in the notice inviting tender cannot be satisfied by anyone in a Panchayat area and therefore, such conditions are arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered with by this Court. The conditions prescribed by the 2nd respondent are as follows:

“ The bidder should have successfully completed similar type of works during the last Five years ending last day of the month previous to the one in which the tenders are invited, according to the following requirements:

One Project costing not less than Rs.1.39 Cr.

or

Two Projects costing not less than R Rs.1.04 Cr Or

Three Projects costing not less than Rs. 69 Lakhs And

The Applicant/Contractor Should Attend Pre -Bid meeting Compulsory on Date and time.”

It is thus seeking to quash the conditions contained in the notice inviting tender, this writ petition is filed.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri.Ahamed Fazil, learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Deepa Narayanan, learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat Sri.Ebin Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for Forest Industries (Travancore) Limited Sri.M.K.Thankappan and perused the pleadings and material on record.

The discussion made above would make it clear that the challenge made by the petitioners is against the conditions fixed in the notice inviting tender by the 2nd respondent. In my considered opinion, when a tender is invited, it is for the tender inviting authority to decide as to the manner in which the tender is to be invited. They have also to take into account the financial viability of the contractors. Petitioners have a contention that there would not be any contractors in the Panchayat area to comply with such conditions and enter into contracts with the 2nd respondent. However, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that in so far the work above Rs.1 Crore is concerned, there are five bidders and work below Rs.1 Crore, there are four bidders.

Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that two of the petitioners have participated in the earlier works of the Panchayat and has left the work incomplete and action is initiated against them. Anyway, I am not going into the details of those aspects for the basic reason that the petitioners have not made out any ground of arbitrariness or illegality in any of the conditions imposed by the 2nd respondent while inviting the bid.

In that view of the matter, I do not think the petitioners have made out any ground for interference in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.