IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7470 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.METAFAB TECHNOLOGIES, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER-35/552 A, OPPOSITE INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, KALOOR, KOCHI, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, V.T.VIJAYAN, AGED 42, S/O.VASUKUTTAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, MALAYATOOR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOINT DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CURCH ROAD, KALOOR, COHIN-682 017. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CURCH ROAD, KALOOR, COHIN-682 017. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD., NEAR INFO PARK, EDACHIRA, THENGOD.P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682 030. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, E.S.I CORPN., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 7470 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the award of a contract to the 3rd respondent, pursuant to a tender floated by respondents 1 & 2. Petitioner's grievance is that despite the petitioner quoting the lowest price the respondents 1 & 2 have confirmed the tender in the name of the 3rd respondent, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. The respondents 1 & 2 have filed a counter statement which reads thus: “2. In pursuance of the quotation received the 1st respondent formed a purchase committee consisting of officer from Finance and Administrative Wing and on the basis of the report of the committee the tender was given to the 3rd respondent after taking into consideration of various aspects. The purchase committee specifically stated that the quality of the products furniture of M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. was better than the petitioner. The committee also noted that the M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. was a reputed manufacturers of furniture. 3. In its report the purchase committee, stated that the quality of the products furniture of M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd was better than that of M/s. Metafab Technologies. The committee also noted that M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd was a reputed manufacturer of furniture, and considering the quality recommended to accept the quotation furnished by them despite being in price, and accordingly advised to place orders with M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. W.P.(C)No. 7470 of 2010 -2- 4. The Joint Director In-charge after perusal of the purchase committee's report accepted their recommendations for placing orders with M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd as not only the quality but also M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd has country wide dealers, which would help the Corporation in having effective warranty for quick repairs and spares, as the products/furniture was to be delivered at 33 sites in 4 districts. 5. Taking into account the recommendations of the purchase committee the respondent accepted to go for the Godrej products, compromising the higher price with the quality assured. 6. Accordingly the Joint Director palced orders on 4.2.2010 with M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd for supply of furniture. The 3rd respondent fulfilled the contract and received the amount.” 2. In view of the fact that the respondents 1 & 2 have found the products offered by the 3rd respondent of superior quality than that of the petitioner, I do not think I can interfere in this matter. There is no inviolable rule that in all cases tender has to be fixed in the name of the lowest or highest tenderer as the case may be. It depends on other factors as well, one of which is the quality of the product offered. It is common knowledge that the 3rd respondent is a reputed company in the field. When the respondents 1 & 2 have come to the conclusion that the product offered by the 3rd respondent is of superior quality which better suits the respondents 1 & 2 and the petitioner has not proved any malafides in the matter of award of tender, I am not W.P.(C)No. 7470 of 2010 -3- inclined to entertain the challenge against the impugned proceedings. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/