IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 30221 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- G.SUGATHAN,S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 60 YEARS, PULLUVILAKAM HOUSE, VLIYATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.S.D.ASOKAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VIKARAM SARABAI SPACE CENTRE, REPRESETNED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GROUP HEAD, C.M.D., CPH, V.S.S.C. THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *3. (THE SECTION HEAD), C.M.D.,C.P.H., V.S.S.C.,THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *CORRECTED AS “THE HEAD” VIDE ORDER DT. 18/11/09 IN I.A. NO. 14042/09. 4. THE DEPUTY HEAD, C.M.D., CPH, V.S.S.C.,THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, V.S.S.C. THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 6 TO 12 IMPLEADED: 6. B. GURUDASAN, CONTRACTOR, PANAKKUDI VEEDU, KIZHAKKINKARA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C). NO.30221/2009-W: 7. MANIYAN.S, CONTRACTOR, THIRUVONAM, KIZHAKKINKARA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 8. BHUVANACHANDRAN.K, CONTRACTOR, PULLUKADU, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 9. A. RAJESH, RAJEE BHAWAN, KAIRALI NAGAR, KULATHOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 10. V.S. ANILKUMAR, V.S. NIVAS, TC.81/2166, KAIRALI NAGAR, KULATHOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. A. SHAMSUDEEN, FATHIMA MANDIRAM, VALIAYAVELI.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. T. SURESHKUMAR, KINATTADI VEEDU, MONVILA, KULATHOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R.6 TO R.12 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD. 25/11/09 IN I.A. 14891/09. R1 TO R5 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA, ADDL.R6 TO R12 BY ADV. MR.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, MR.A.JAHANGEER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30221/2009-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DTD. 09/09/2009 PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 12/09/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 07/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. ON 14/10/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. VSSC/CMD-PH/HLS/00482/09/385 DTD. 25/09/2009. EXT.R2: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDERS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE R.2. EXT.R3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. VSSC/CMD-CPH/HLS/00482/09 DTD 27/10/2009. EXT.R4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE GUIDELINES. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 30221 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The matter relates to rejection of a tender. The petitioner contends that the tender submitted by him being the lowest, he is entitled to be awarded the work. The work in question is landscaping work at Brahm Prakash Complex at TERLS within the VSSC campus. Ext.P1 is the tender notification. The estimated rate for the conduct of the work was Rs.20,44,103/-. The earnest money deposit required for participating in the tender was mentioned as Rs.40,882/-. The petitioner submitted the tender in due time and as earnest money deposit, he had produced two F.D. receipts for Rs.22,000/- and Rs.19,000/- . 2. The sealed tenders were opened by the fifth respondent on 24.9.2009. The rate quoted by the petitioner in his tender was Rs.18,93,000/-, which is lower than the estimated rate. According to the petitioner, while the process of awarding the work to him was in progress, some of the party respondents herein who were also tenderers, furnished an objection stating that the petitioner has furnished two F.D. receipts as E.M.D. which are of the dates prior to the date of tender and therefore the wpc 30221/2009 2 same cannot be accepted. Finally, by Ext.P2, he was informed that the tender could not be accepted. Even though a representation was submitted later, no action was being taken in the matter and it is in these circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that eight parties responded to the tender notice and the lowest offer was from the petitioner. He furnished two deposit receipts through Deposit Receipt No.541984 dated 5.8.2009 for Rs.22,000/- and Deposit Receipt No.444001 dated 23.9.2009 for Rs.19,000/-. The Deposit Receipt dated 5.8.2009 is prior to the publication of the tender notice. The averment in the writ petition that the 4th respondent had endorsed that the work can be awarded to the petitioner is denied in the counter affidavit. On 25.9.2009 some of the tenderers who participated in the tendering process, objected to the awarding of contract to the petitioner on the ground that one of the Deposit Receipts for EMD was taken prior to the date of notification of the tender and the letter in that regard has been produced as Ext.R2. The case of the petitioner that other highest bidders offered that the work could be done at a much lower rate than that quoted by the petitioner, has also been denied. It is contended that the respondents have the right to accept or wpc 30221/2009 3 reject any tender and also to retender any tendered work for getting more competitive offers. Without going into the legalities of the issue and keeping in mind the benefit of the department, it was decided to cancel the tender and the respondents are fully empowered to do so. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since there is no basis for the objection with regard to the EMD submitted by the petitioner, as both the F.D. receipts were valid. It is stated that he did not violate any of the tender conditions. Being the lowest tenderer, his tender ought to have been accepted. It is submitted that the rejection of the tender is arbitrary. This argument is opposed by the learned Government Pleader. It was submitted that there is no rule that the lowest tender is bound to be accepted at all times. The respondents are bound to consider the entire aspects to find out whether the tenders received are competitive or not. Herein, it is not because of the objection by the other tenderers, that it was decided to cancel the tender. The decision was taken to get more competitive offers. 5. The principles regarding the award of contract are well settled by various decisions of the Apex Court. The question is whether there had been any arbitrariness in the processes conducted. If it is evident from the wpc 30221/2009 4 process undertaken by the authorities that the parties were not treated even handedly, the action would be vitiated as arbitrary. 6. Herein, on the facts of the case, it is evident that none of the tenders were accepted. The respondents have decided to get more competitive offers. It is not due to reasons attributed by the petitioner that his tender was not accepted. Even going by the pleadings, his tender was below the estimated rate also. That does not mean that automatically his tender is liable to be accepted. Herein, nobody has been preferred and in the process of tendering also, no arbitrary decisions have been taken by the respondents. After assessing various aspects they have decided to float a new tender for getting more competitive offers, going by the averment in para 6 of the counter affidavit. Such an attitude of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary at all. Since the work in question is to be done for the benefit of the respondents, they are well empowered to decide whether more competitive offers have to be obtained or not. 7. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, in the matter. It is not because of the controversy regarding the EMD submitted by the petitioner that the work is sought to be retendered. There was no decision to accept his tender, as wpc 30221/2009 5 revealed from the counter affidavit. In the above view of the matter, no interference is called for. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/