IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29240 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.M.KUNJU MOHAMAD, CONTRACTOR, NETOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.MOHAN C.MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., (MARKETING DIVISION), KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L.P.G.), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION), KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036. 3. THE SYSTEM & SECURITY SERVICES, CONTRACTOR, (LOADING & UNLOADING), L.P.G.BOTTLING PLANT, IOC LTD., KOZHIKODE. 4. V.K.RAJU, CONTRACTOR, (HAULAGE, CARTAGE, & CLEANING), L.P.G., BOTTLING PLANT, I.O.C., KOZHIKODE. 5. THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SARARKTA BHAVAN, BLOCK.A., G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI- 1100023. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, R5 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29240 of 2009 - Y ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th October, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.Mohan C. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the 5th respondent. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited tenders for carrying out the work of loading and unloading of cylinders and for haulage, cartage, clearing and miscellaneous work at their Calicut plant. In the tender terms and conditions, it is stipulated that the rates are to be quoted in figures and words on percentage basis in the price bid. The tenderers were also cautioned that if the rates are not quoted in words, such offers will be summarily rejected. It was also stated that tenders which do not meet the tender conditions are liable to be rejected. W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 2 3. Pursuant to the tender notice, the petitioner submitted that his credential bid and price bid. In the price bid, instead of quoting the percentage rate offered by him in words and figures, the petitioner quoted the rate only in figures. This writ petition is filed contending that as the petitioner's bid is the lowest, it ought to have been accepted. It is conceded at the Bar that shortly after this writ petition was filed, the petitioner's bid was rejected on the ground that the percentage rate quoted by him in the price bid was not mentioned in figures and words. 4. A copy of the price bid submitted by the petitioner is produced as Ext.R1 (a) along with the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Relying on the terms and conditions of the tender notice, respondents 1 and 2 have stated that the petitioner's bid was not in accordance with the tender conditions and therefore, it was rejected for the reason that the rate quoted by him was only in figures and not both in words and figures. The respondents also contend that the stipulation in the tender notice is that the percentage rate shall be both in words and figures. W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 3 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the general guidelines forming part of the tender conditions read as follows: “7. Rates are to be quoted in figures and words on percentage basis in the Price Bid (inclusive of all taxes excluding Service Tax) only under Minus ( - ) % column, or Plus ( + ) % column. If rates are quoted under both Plus ( + ) % column and Minus ( - )% column, offer would be summarily rejected. When there is a difference between the rates in figures and words, the rate quoted in words shall be accepted. Service tax paid by the contractor shall be reimbursed on actual basis subject to production of proof of payment in originals. 8. If rates are not quoted in words, offer would be summarily rejected.” It is thus evident from the general conditions of the tender that the rate has to be quoted not only in figures but also in words. It is also stated that if rates are not quoted in words, the offer will be summarily rejected. In my opinion, the petitioner who did not admittedly satisfy the tender conditions by quoting in his price bid, the rate offered by him in words cannot be heard W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 4 to contend that his bid should be entertained and accepted. It is to rule out the possibility of any tampering with the rate quoted in the price bid that the official respondents have insisted that the rate should be quoted not only in words but also in figures. This is all the more important for the reason that the rates can be quoted below the minimum prescribed and also above the minimum prescribed. In other words, if in the petitioner's tender, the rate quoted is minus 5.11 percentage above the tender rate, it is possible for someone else who is interested in disqualifying the petitioner to convert it as + 5.11 percentage above the tender rate. It is to avoid such a possibility that it is insisted that the rates should be quoted both in words and in figures. The petitioner's bid did not admittedly satisfy the said stipulation. I am therefore persuaded to agree with the official respondents that the petitioner's bid was liable to be rejected on that short ground. Further, if official respondents are given the discretion to condone such lapses, it can lead to abuse or misuse of such discretionary power. In a given case, an erring officer of the Indian Oil Corporation can permit an otherwise invalid tender to W.P.(C) No.29240/2009 5 be corrected and made valid. That will vitiate the tendering process. Such a stipulation cannot, in my opinion, be watered down to enable persons like the petitioner who do not have submitted their bid in accordance with the tender conditions to participate in the selection process. I therefore find no reason to entertain this writ petition. 6. It is brought to my notice that as regards the haulage, cartage, clearing and miscellaneous work, the respondents are likely to re-tender the work. I make it clear that notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition, it will be open to the petitioner to participate in the re-tender if the work of haulage, cartage, clearing and miscellaneous work is re- tendered by the Corporation and nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from participating in such re-tender, if any. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa