Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 415 (KER)

C. S. M. Transports v. Kerala Feeds Ltd.

2002-07-01

M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2002
Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. The first respondent is a Kerala Government undertaking. BY Ext. P6, tenders had been invited from contractors for transport of cattle feeds produced by the company to northern and southern regions from their plant at Kallettumkara. It was for a period of two years. In Ext P6, it had been indicated that it was essential that documentary evidence for pre-qualification for having carried out similar documents were to be produced. It was also a condition that the bidder should have a minimum of ten trucks having valid goods carrier permit, in his own name. The technical bid and the price bid were to be separately submitted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the tender. 2. The averment in this original petition is that on 11-9-2001, the pre-qualification tenders are opened. The technical bid showed that there tenders namely the petitioner, second and third respondents were qualified to participate in the price bid. When price bid was opened on 12-9-2001, it was invited for a conference by Ext. P7 does not refer to anything else. But, Ext. P8 shows that the petitioner had agreed to make available the relevant documents in respect of his experience claimed for a verification. Ultimately, by Ext. P9 on 12-10-2001, he had been advised that as the document relating to his experience was found to be fake, he could not have been permitted to participate in the proceedings at all. It was also stated that the bid offered by him could not be considered on account of his lack of satisfying and fulfilling the terms and conditions of technical bid, and hence his technical bid is disqualified and price bid is automatically rejected. The contract thereupon had been awarded to respondents had been awarded to respondents 2 and 3. This is under challenge. 3. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. IN the counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it had been claimed that even at the inception of the proceedings, that is, on 11-9-2001, the petitioner’s technical bids were accepted and he was permitted to participate in the price bid only subject to the objections raised by the fellow tenders that he has to be prove his credentials appropriately. Sri. Siri Jagan appearing for the first respondent produced Exts. Sri. Siri Jagan appearing for the first respondent produced Exts. R1(a) and R1 (b) to show that such endorsements have been made and signed by the persons who were present there, including the petitioner. He also referred to Ext. R1(d), which also contained an endorsement that the price bids were opened on condition that it will be (finality) accepted only after verifying the genuineness of the certificates produced by them. Thus, he submits that the very fact of opening the price bid of the petitioner did not confer him any rights. Taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, he pointed out that though he had been permitted to participate in the price bid it was subject to the condition that he was to satisfy his credentials. He also relies on Ext. P8 which shows that the petitioner had been advised of the requirement for production of sufficient materials to show about his claims and the petitioner has attempted to produce the documents in support of his claims and in fact, the same had been produced. It is his case that on detailed verification, the documents were found not capable of generating confidence and later independent enquiries had been found that the certificates that had been found that the certificates were found on the boarder lines of unreality. He took me through the certificates that had been made available by the petitioner, in an attempt to establish by the petitioner, in an attempt to establish that they had been prepared without care and it prima facie indicated that they had been secured for the purpose pf presentation and the documents did not disclose any real details, on cross verification. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 also submitted that they had objected to the all claims of the petitioner and also that the petitioner was aware of the circumstances that his price bid and been examined, submitted that the rates quoted by the petitioner, were unworkable and they were so unrealistic as it would not have been possible for the petitioner to carry out the contract. 5. It is true that there was nothing in Ext. P7 to show that a reverification was in the mind of the first respondent. Ext. P8 but shows that as early as on 17-9-2001, the petitioner had been required to produce supporting documents. 5. It is true that there was nothing in Ext. P7 to show that a reverification was in the mind of the first respondent. Ext. P8 but shows that as early as on 17-9-2001, the petitioner had been required to produce supporting documents. He had no objection at that time and that itself would show that he was aware of the position that his credentials were seriously under challenge. Then the question is about the veracity of the documents that had been produced by him. Sitting in the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, it may not be possible for me to decide one way or other as to whether petitioner had made available documents which were not genuine. In the matter of contract, the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. Even if petitioner’s technical bid has been accepted at one point, it would have been perfectly and legally possible for me to decide one way or other as to whether petitioner had made available documents which were not genuine. In the matter of contract, the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. Even if petitioner’s technical bid has been accepted at one point, it would have been perfectly and legally possible for the first respondent to reenquire into the matter wholly, de novo, if circumstances warranted it. There was nothing like principles pf estoppel operating in favour of petitioner, or as against the interest of the first respondent. If the petitioner’s submissions are accepted in its face value, it may lead to drastic results. At the time of opening the pre-qualification envelop, everybody had to proceed as if the claims were authentic. A verification at that time, would nearly be impossible. That does not mean that a person who was really not qualified, should get the benefit of exclusive consideration, for the only reason that he was permitted accessibility to the inner chambers. The condition remained ass they were, and everybody participating in the bid, always had the unqualified right to point out that there was a basic error or deliberate misrepresentation by any one who could get through the preliminary screening. The petitioner is not to be permitted to gain because of his own misrepresentations. 6. The facts presented indicate that his technical bid was accepted subject to certain conditions. The petitioner is not to be permitted to gain because of his own misrepresentations. 6. The facts presented indicate that his technical bid was accepted subject to certain conditions. It was ultimately in that pursuit, other enquiries were made and from the material collected, it is seen that a final decision was taken to reject his candidature as he was taken to reject his candidature as he was lacking experience stipulated by Ext. R1 (a) and R1(b) were later creations. But I do not intend to dwell upon it, as it has been indicated atleast by Ext. P8 that the petitioner had been alerted about the veracity of his claims. 7. It has also come out that as early as on 11-10-2001, the contract has been awarded to the second and third respondents and a direction for retender or reconsideration at this stage would be detrimental to the better interest of a public sector enterprises, not that I am convinced about the claims of the petitioner. Nor is it now necessary for me to express my view about the disclosure that the petitioner’s rates were uneconomical. However, this is also a relevant factor, which every prudent employer has to take note of in his own interest. 8. Even though petitioner has stated that second and third respondents entered in the contracts by influencing the first respondent, there is no sufficient material to show that any extra nourishment had been received by them. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is not a stranger to the company, as they have subsisting contracts with them. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that any interference is called for in this matter. Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed.