IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18990 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.SYAMAPRASAD, SIVA HOLDINGS, S-32, SANKAR NAGAR, KOLLAM, KERALA, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ACME MACHINERY INDIA LTD., G-16, SHALIMAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NEAR TATA POWER HOUSE, MATTUNGA WEST, MUMBAI - 400019. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND RE PROGRAFFIC CENTRE HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).18990/2009 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner responded to Ext.P1 notification issued by the 1st respondent inviting tenders from eligible persons for the supply of programmable cutting machine (1 No.). According to the petitioner, apart from him, two other persons had participated in the tender. A machine proposed to be supplied by the petitioner and deployed in the Government Printing Press at Koratty and Wayanad was inspected by a team deputed by the 1st respondent and according to the petitioner, they were satisfied of the same. Petitioner claims that the rate quoted by the him is significantly lower than what is stated to have been quoted by the two competent tenderers. It is the petitioner's further case that since the officials operating the machines in the Government Printing Press at Koratty and Wayanad have accepted the efficacy of the machines there is no reason why the petitioner's tenders should not have been considered or why the petitioner's financial bid should not have been opened. While so, petitioner was met with W.P.(C).18990/09 2 Ext.P10 in which it has been informed that the Tender Evaluation Committee has now found that the petitioner has made several false claims in the tender documents and this has resulted in procedure delay for the finalisation, in addition to unnecessary expenditure. The Tender Evaluation Committee took a decision to forfeit the EMD and also recommend to the Government for blacklisting the firm. The decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee has been affirmed by the Executive Committee, and the same has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. An action by way of forfeiture of EMD and a recommendation for blacklisting the firm obviously could not have been taken without hearing the petitioner on the proposed action. Ext.P10 is therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner is one W.P.(C).18990/09 3 of the tenderers, an action as now proposed under Ext.P2 can be taken only after hearing the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P10 shall stand set aside and the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner if it proposes any action by way of forfeiture of EMD or blacklisting the firm. Fresh orders, if the 1st respondent proposes to do so, shall be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Finalization of the tenders received pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be taken only after such orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs