IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13786 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BIJI PRASAD.K.C., KALATHIPARAMBIL, NEDUMPRAKKAD, CHERTHALA P.O. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.P.N.APPUKUTTAN SMT.P.A.RINUSA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CHARIMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHERTHALA. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASST. TRANSPORT OFFICER, DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICE KSRTC, CHERTHALA DEPOT. R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 13786/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TENDER CONDITIONS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/01/2007. P2: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE BEARING NO.G2/3477/CHERTHALA DATED 19/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 23/02/2010 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,000/- P4: COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 23/02/2010 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,582/- P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/04/2010. P6: COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF RE-TENDER NOTICE DATED 22/23.04.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13786 of 2010- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents in not accepting the tender submitted by him and the notification issued afresh to conduct a retender. 2. The issue has reached this Court in the following circumstances. The first respondent had proposed an auction of the right to conduct canteen, stall, STD booth, tea/coffee vending machine, etc. in the bus station at Cherthala. Ext.P1 is the copy of the revised tender conditions. Ext.P2 is the tender notice dated 19.2.2010. The petitioner also participated in the auction which was held on 23.2.2010. According to the petitioner, in terms of the conditions in Ext.P1, she had produced the security bonds and tax receipts of two tax payers to fulfil clause 1 of Ext.P1. But the second respondent then directed the petitioner to submit an undertaking that the remaining bid amount will be deposited as a single instalment. Accordingly, an undertaking was filed by her. The petitioner turned out to be the highest bidder, and she remitted the EMD to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on the very same day which is evidenced by Ext.P3, copy of the receipt. wpc 13786/2010 2 Another amount of Rs.11,582/- was also deposited by her which represents 25% of the bid amount and tax. 3. The petitioner thereafter took steps to comply with all other formalities. But failing to get any positive action in the matter, she made a request as per Ext.P5. Then she was informed, on enquiries, that the first respondent has taken steps to cancel the auction itself for conducting a reauction with respect to the tender for coffee vending machine which was auctioned in the petitioner's favour. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Managing Director. 4. What is found as a violation of Ext.P1 is the non compliance of the general terms of the conditions of tender. Going by clause 1 of Ext.P1 the tenderer should submit along with the tender, either bank guarantee for an equivalent amount of licence fee or solvency certificate or security of two tax payers. Herein, what has been produced by the petitioner is an undertaking agreeing to pay the balance bid amount at the time of executing the agreement itself. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to clause 8 of Ext.P1. As per clause 8, 25% of the bid amount has to be paid at the wpc 13786/2010 3 time of acceptance of the highest bid, 25% of the amount has to be deposited at the time of execution of agreement and the remaining 50% will have to be remitted within six months in three equal bi-monthly instalments. It is pointed out that she had complied with the remittance of 25% as well as the deposit of EMD and she is even prepared to remit the entire amount in a lump which offer was repeated during the time of argument also. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was prepared to comply with condition No.1 in Ext.P1 by producing two solvency certificates. But the second respondent persuaded her to file an affidavit. That alone has led to the present situation. As far as the general conditions of tender is concerned, it cannot be said that the second respondent or any other officer can relax the conditions in favour of anybody who submitted the tender. Herein, evidently clause 1 was not complied with by the petitioner, but as explained by the learned counsel, an affidavit was filed. Whatever that be, the same remains as a serious defect in the procedures of the tender. Therefore, the stand taken by the Managing Director cannot be found fault with. Non compliance with the mandatory conditions in Ext.P1 cannot be accepted. 7. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to remit the entire amount in a lump as a condition for wpc 13786/2010 4 acceptance of the tender, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that in view of the time lag between the date of notification and in the light of the fact that the general conditions have not been properly fulfilled by the petitioner, the same cannot be agreed upon and a fresh auction will have to be conducted. 8. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the steps taken by the respondents for cancelling the auction and to conduct a retender. The amount remitted by the petitioner as per Exts.P3 and P4 will be returned to her within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A fresh auction will be held within a period of three weeks. It is open to the respondents to adjust the amount paid by the petitioner as per Exts.P3 and P4 if the petitioner participates in the reauction and become successful. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/