IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22512 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.O.JOSE, S/O.OUSEPH, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, KELAKATHU HOUSE, OLD MARTHOMA CHURCH ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.JOSEPH, SRI.JOSEPH PUNNOOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.CIRCLE, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss W.P.(C) NO.22512/2010 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ELECTRONIC TENDER NOTICE DTD. 23/11/2009. P2: COPY OF THE TENDER EXTENSION NOTICE DTD. 22/05/2010. P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23/06/2010. P4: COPY OF R2 REJECTING THE TENDER DTD. 28/06/2010. P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DTD. 01/07/2010. P6: COPY OF DETAILED TENDER NOTICE. P7: COPY OF RECEIPT OF D.D. FOR THE SECURITY AMOUNT. P8: COPY OF PROOF OF SUBMISSION OF E-TENDER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22512 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a contractor. By Ext.P1 electronic tender notice dated 23/11/2009, the respondent Authority invited tenders for the work of Augmentation of WSS Kumarakom and Thiruvarppu Panchayats in Kottayam District. Among other details provided in Ext.P1, it was specified that those who submitted e-tenders should also submit hard copies of contents on technical bid on the tender opening day. The technical bids were opened at 2 pm on 22/06/2010. Going by the counter affidavit filed, the petitioner submitted hard copies as required in Ext.P1 tender notice at 4.15 pm on 22/06/2010. On the ground that the petitioner did not submit the hard copies before the technical bids were opened at 2 pm on 22/06/2010, he was informed by Ext.P4 that his tender will not be considered. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 and to direct the respondents to accept the hard copies of contents in cover A and B WP(C) No.22512/2010 -2- and consider the tender submitted by the petitioner. 2. In the counter affidavit filed, although the respondents accepted that the petitioner is an eligible tenderer, as already mentioned above, the reason for rejection is stated to be the belated submission of hard copies, in as much as the same were submitted only at 4.15 pm on 22/06/2010 and not before 1 pm on that day. 3. The correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Water Authority in rejecting the tender of the petitioner for the reason that hard copies were submitted belatedly, depends upon the terms of Ext.P1 electronic tender notice. As per the terms of Ext.P1, the tenderers are required to submit hard copies of contents of cover A & B on the technical bid opening day. There is no requirement that the hard copies should be submitted before any specified time or even before the expiry of the time specified for tender closing. In such circumstances, if a tenderer had submitted hard copies on the day on which the technical bids are opened that will be sufficient compliance of Ext.P1 tender notice. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted hard copies on 22/06/2010 itself. If that be so, there is WP(C) No.22512/2010 -3- sufficient compliance of Ext.P1 tender notice. 4. Learned standing counsel for the respondents relied on clause 7 of Ext.P6 and contended that tender should have been submitted not later than 1 pm on 22/06/2010 and that therefore, the bids submitted by the petitioner should be taken as belatedly. I am not persuaded to accept this contention for the reason that this provision does not deal with the submission of hard copies by those contractors who have submitted their tenders by e-mail. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the petitioner's tender cannot be upheld and Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside and I do so. According to the learned standing counsel, the bids are now pending consideration of the Board of the 1st respondent. Now that the rejection of the petitioner's bid is held illegal, it is directed that the technical bid submitted by the petitioner will be evaluated and forwarded to the Board, which shall consider the bid submitted along with the bids submitted by other tenderers. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg