IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 29040 of 2007(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- WADAKKANCHERY BLOCK MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REGN.NO.1125, WADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.E.K.DIVAKARAN. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), THRISSUR. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, THALAPPILLY TALUK GOVERNMENT OFFICER, UTTUPARA, WADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR. 3. HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, THALAPPILLY TALUK GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER (SUPERINTENDENT, THALAPPILLY TALUK GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL), WADAKKANCHERRY P.O. 4. WADAKKANCHERRY BLOCK PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. 5. WADAKKANCHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.3279, WADAKKANCHERRY P.O., TRICHUR DIST., REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR KANGHINGHAT - R4 SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN - R4 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) - R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.29040/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.7 DTD.21/05/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 16/06/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 2/07/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.65/05 DTD. 4/07/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.65/05 DTD. 4/07/2005 GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.65/05 DTD. 16/07/2005 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HOSPITAL, WADAKKANCHERRY. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 17/06/2005. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C.S.(1)29566/05 DTD. 23/07/2005. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.21974/2005 DTD. 5/10/2005. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 DTD. 26/11/2005. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP9C) NO.21974/2005 DTD. 15/12/2006. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.174/2007 DTD. 19/2/2007. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE PUBLIC TENDER INVITED B;Y THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE TENDER DTD. 14/05/2007 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF THE PHARMACIST. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE TENDER DTD. 14/05/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE WADAKKANCHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE DECISION IS OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DTD. 24/05/2007. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT P16. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.N.M.S.(1)1998-99 DTD. 4/9/1998 WITH TYPED VERSION. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.29040/2007 F RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(1): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6/10/1998 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TALUK HOSPITAL. EXT.R5(2): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER DTD. 10/08/2004. EXT.R5(3): COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 23/08/2004 GIVEN BY RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.R5(4): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ;DTD. 13/09/2004 ISSUED BY DMO THRISSUR. EXT.R5(5): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4/10/2004 ADDRESSED TO BLOCK PANCHAYAT GIVEN BY RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(6): COPY OF THE REMINDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DTD. 10/01/2005 TO BLOCK PANCHAYAT. EXT.R5(7): COPY OF THE ANOTHER REMINDER DTD. 8/06/2005 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(8): COPY OF THE REMINDER ISUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 21/10/2005. EXT.R5(9): COPY OF THE LETTER INTIMATION ISSUED BY BLOCK PANCHAYAT DTD. 19/06/2007. EXT.R5(10): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE BANK DTD. 19/07/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMANIC, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29040 OF 2007 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P16. Petitioner seeks directions for allotting the building constructed by the Block Panchayat in the premises of the Taluk Hospital, Thalappally for the purpose of starting the Neethi Medical Store. According to the petitioner in March, 2005, the 4th respondent Panchayat constructed a building in the hospital premises for starting a medical store and thereafter passed Ext.P1 resolving to handover the same to the petitioner for running Neethi Medical Store. 2. The 1st respondent thereafter issued Ext.P2 directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to start the medical store and still later as is evidenced from Ext.P4 the building was handed over to the hospital authorities. In pursuance to Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner expressed its willingness to start the medical store and it is stated that in July, 2005 the key was also handed over to the petitioner, on the strength of which W.P.(C) No.29040/2007 2 petitioner started work in the premises. 3. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 requiring the petitioner to stop further works and enclosing Ext.P7 resolution passed by the 4th respondent Panchayat cancelling Ext.P1 resolution. Petitioner submits that in the mean time he was issued Ext.P8 licence from the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 4. In view of Exts.P6 and P7 as the petitioner could not proceed with the work, he challenged Ext.P6 by filing W.P.(C)No.21974/2005 before this Court. In that writ petition Ext.P9 order was passed by this Court directing the 4th respondent to decide on the further steps in pursuance to Ext.P6. Accordingly, the 4th respondent by Ext.P10 decided to invite tenders. While so, the writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P11 judgment, against which the petitioner filed W.A.No.174/2007 and that was also dismissed by Ext.P12. Petitioner filed a review petition as R.P.No.364/2007. While the review was pending, the Panchayat decided to hand over the building to the 5th W.P.(C) No.29040/2007 3 respondent. In view of these developments, the review petition was closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Panchayat to hand over the building to the 5th respondent. 5. While the matter is stood thus, Ext.P13 was issued by the 4th respondent inviting tenders for running the Neethi Medical Store in the hospital premises. Responding to Ext.P13 petitioner and the respondent submitted Exts.P14 and P15 tenders. The tender submitted by the 5th respondent was eventually accepted and by Ext.P16 it was decided to award the contract of the 5th respondent. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent that they have already entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent for establishing and running of the medical store. However, in view of the pendency of the writ petition and with the interim order no further progress will be made. W.P.(C) No.29040/2007 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions mainly objecting to the acceptance of Ext.P15 tender submitted by the 5th respondent. In the tender, the 5th respondent did not offer the amount that is payable to the 4th respondent as consideration for allotment of the building for running the medical shop and this tender was defective and did not merit consideration. 8. A reading of Ext.P15 shows that the 5th respondent did not specify any amount as such but had stated that they were agreeable to pay the amount as fixed by the 4th respondent. It is seen from Ext.R5(10) agreement between the 3rd respondent and the 5th respondent that the rate agreed between the parties is Rs.3,500/- per month as against Rs.3,000/- offered by the petitioner in Ext.P14 tender made by him. 9. Prima facie there is force in the contention raised by the petitioner that in the absence of specifying the amount payable in the tender, the tender submitted by the 5th respondent W.P.(C) No.29040/2007 5 could not have been treated as valid or accepted. But from the material now produced by the petitioner itself, it can be seen that at the time when tender was made, petitioner did not have a valid licence for conducting a medical shop. 10. To show that the petitioner has a licence in this behalf, what is relied on is Ext.P8, the proceedings of Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued on 23.7.2005 which shows that licence has been renewed for six months from 28.6.2005. There is no case for the petitioner that Ext.P8 was renewed. Thus it is evident that at the time when the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 tender on 14.5.2007, the period of the licence granted by Ext.P8 had already expired. If that be so, petitioner was unqualified to quote in response to Ext.P13 and for that reason Ext.P14 could not have been validly entertained. Such being the situation, the only offeror was the 5th respondent whose bid was accepted by the 3rd respondent. 11. Though technically that bid was defective, in the circumstances of the case as there where only two bidders and W.P.(C) No.29040/2007 6 one among them namely the petitioner was evidently unqualified, I do not think that technicality should come in the way and result in rejection of the tender submitted by the 5th respondent. 12. Be that as it may, fact remains that the tender was received for a period of one year and that during the one year period nothing has materialised in pursuance to Ext.P13. In view of long lapse of time, it is for the 4th respondent to decide as to whether the tender received in pursuance to Ext.P13 should be acted upon now or fresh tenders are to be invited. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ps