IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14479 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ REMANI.S.NAIR,MANCHERY HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTROR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(CENTRAL REGION) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI-682011. 3. THE SUPERINTENDEING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. *ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED *R4: K.O.JOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, KELAKATHU HOUSE, OLD MARTHOMA CHURCH, PERUMBAVOOR. * IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/7/10 IN IA NO.9672/10 R1 RO R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA SRI.M.J.THOMAS SMT.RUBY K.JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.14479/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26/10/2009 P1(A) COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 26/3/2009. P2 COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 14/9/2009 P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/1/2010 P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/1/2010 IN WP(C)NO.1700/2010 P5 COPY OF the JUDGMENT DATED 30/1/2010 IN WP(C) NO.3030/2010 P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/2/2010 P7 COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER DATED 3/3/2010 SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 7/4/2010. P9 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8/4/2010. P10 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MANUAL. P11 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/4/2010 P12 COPY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT DATED 31/3/2008 P13 COPY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT DATED 13/8/2009 P14 COPY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT DATED 19/4/2010. P15 COPY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT DATED 31/3/2007 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE EVALUATION MEETING WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 4/1/2010. R4(B) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE DATED 4/1/2010. R4(C) COPY OF THE PUBLISHED ON 6/1/2010 ALONG WITH THE TENDER TABULATION. /TRUE COPY/ sts P.A.TO.JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.14479 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a contractor of Kerala Water Authority with A Class registration. Ext.P2 is a tender notice published by the 3rd respondent, inviting tenders for the works mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted offers in response to item No.1 and 4. In this writ petition she is confining his claim in respect of item No.4 of Ext.P2 tender notice. According to the respondents, the bid of the petitioner was considered by the technical committee, the recommendation of which is Ext.R4(a) dtd.10.12.2009. 2. The recommendation was not to pre-qualify the petitioner and it reads as follows: “4. Smt.Remani S. Nair From the balance sheet for the year 2009 the net worth of the tenderer is Rs.20.45 lakhs which is less than 2/3 of the required net worth as per clause 7.17.1.1(A)4 and cannot be considered for prequalification. Also there is no sufficient average annual turn over and no documentary proof of previously executed single work worth Rs.82.50 lakhs. So the tenderer is not prequalified.” W.P(C) No.14479 of 2010 2 3. On 6.1.2010 Ext.R4(c) list of pre-qualified tenders was published, which contained five contractors and in view of Ext.R4(a) the petitioner was excluded. Apparently, in view of Ext.P4 judgment in W.P(C) No.1700/2010 dtd.19.1.2010 directing consideration of the representation made by yet another tenderer, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dtd.25.1.2010 complaining that her prize bid was excluded from consideration. Thereafter she approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.3030/2010. In view of Ext.P4 judgment referred to above, this Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P5 judgment dtd.30.1.2010 directing consideration of Ext.P3 representation. 4. In spite of her disqualification as per Ext.R4(a), the respondents opened the prize bid submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner inspite of opening her prize bid, the prize bids submitted by the remaining pre- qualified contractors were proposed to be placed before the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent on 11.5.2010. It is W.P(C) No.14479 of 2010 3 in the aforesaid background this writ petition was filed, praying to direct that the work be awarded to the petitioner and to place the petitioner's tender before the Board while considering the other tenders also. In support of the claim that she is entitled to have her bid also considered, the petitioner relied on Ext.P7 evaluation report submitted by the Chief Engineer, which shows that the petitioner was the lowest tenderer. 5. On the other hand the contention of the respondents is that inspite of the fact that the petitioner was not pre-qualified, it was in view of the direction in Ext.P5 judgment, that her prize bid was also opened. It is stated that the bids are to be placed before the Board of Directors and it is for the Board of Directors to finally take a decision on the pre-qualification or otherwise on the petitioner and also on the question of awarding the tender in respect of the work in question. 6. Although I am inclined to agree with the respondents that the fact that prize bid of the petitioner was W.P(C) No.14479 of 2010 4 opened by itself cannot make any right in favour of the petitioner, as at present the respondents have not taken any final decision in the matter. In that view of the matter, the only order that is required to be passed in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to place the proceedings in relation to item No.4 of Ext.P2 tender notice (Tender No.30/2009-10) before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent shall consider the entire issue and take a decision in the matter. 7. Having regard to the long lapse of time due to pendency of this writ petition, I direct that an expeditious decision shall be taken by the 1st respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE