IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27687 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- PRASANTH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PRABHA SANKAR, A.G.ROAD, CALICUT-32,PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRASANTH ASSOCIATES, ARICHITECTS, HAVING ADDRESS 4/451, A.G.ROAD, CALICUT-32 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CYBER PARK,CALICUT, CYBER PARK ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BUILDING 18/1819,NELLIKODE P.O.,CALICUT KERALA, PIN:673016 3. M/S.N.M.SALIM AND ASSOCIATES REP.BY ITS PROPREITOR,MR.SALIM,A.G.ROAD, CALICUT-673032. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27687 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Proprietor of a Firm of Architects by name Prasanth Associates, Calicut. In this writ petition, he is challenging the selection of the 3rd respondent as a Consultant of the 2nd respondent. 2. Facts of the case are that, the 2nd respondent published Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for the selection of a Consultant and Ext.P2 is the invitation of offers containing the eligibility, scope of work and such other terms of the offer. According to the petitioner, including himself, 8 persons submitted their offers in response to Exts.P1 and P2. The criteria for assessment are those indicated in Ext.P3. It would appear that the 2nd respondent constituted a committee of experts consisting of officers from Info Park, Kochi, NIT, Kozhikode and from Cyber Park for evaluating the offers and presentation of the Architects who responded to Exts.P1 and P2. 3. Accordingly, petitioner and others made presentations and their bids were evaluated by the committee. The yardsticks WPC No. 27687/10 :2 : applied by the committee are disclosed in Ext.P5 series of documents. Based on the evaluation thus undertaken by the Committee, the Committee shortlisted 5 Architects and among the 5 Architects, the 3rd respondent had quoted the lowest rate and the petitioner was the second lowest. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent appears to have been appointed as Consultant. It is this proceedings which is under challenge. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once evaluation criteria have been framed and applied, decision of the 2nd respondent ought not have been guided by the price offered alone. It is also contended that the evaluation criteria applied by the committee are different from the criteria indicated in Ext.P3. 5. It is true that in Ext.P3, the evaluation criteria have been indicated. However, a reading of Ext.P5, which contains the yardsticks applied by the committee of experts show that the committee has gone into the details of the evaluation criteria indicated in Ext.P3 and have assessed the eligibility of the Architects who have responded to Exts.P1 and P2. Comparing the contents of Ext.P3 with the evaluation criteria as indicated in Ext.P5 also, I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel WPC No. 27687/10 :3 : for the petitioner that the rules of evaluation were changed by the evaluation committee after the invitation of the bids from the respective Architects. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. 6. In so far as second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there also, what is seen from the documents is that the procedure adopted essentially is something similar to a two part tender and the first part consists of the evaluation of the suitability of the tenders. Suitability of the tenders have been evaluated as per the parameters laid down. Accordingly, out of the 8 architects who had responded to Exts.P1 and P2, five were shortlisted. Once shortlisting was thus done, among the five, 3rd respondent who had quoted the lowest rate has been chosen and awarded the work. I do not find anything illegal or erroneous in the said action of the 2nd respondent. 7. Irrespective of all this, fact remains that the 3rd respondent has been appointed as the Consultant pursuant to the competitive bids that were invited . As indicated by the Apex Court in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport WPC No. 27687/10 :4 : Limited (AIR 2000 SC 801), in a proceedings of this nature, this Court need interfere only if public interest warrants it and not on the making of a legal point. Petitioner has not been able to show me that by the appointment of the 3rd respondent, public interest has suffered in any manner. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp