Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1055 (KER)

Syam v. Director of Animal Husbandry

2013-11-28

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT : The petitioner who is a manufacturer of various medicines, particularly in the veterinary sector, sought to participate in the tender floated by the first respondent vide Ext.P1, followed by Ext.P2 e-tendering system. The last date for submission of bid was on 13.11.2013 and according to the petitioner, the bid was submitted, also remitting the requisite amount of Rs.1,250/- towards VAT, which alone was liable to be satisfied by the petitioner, having exemption from payment of tender form cost of Rs.25,000/- or the EMD, being a Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME). The payment was effected by the petitioner with the petitioner's banker on time, which was credited to the account of the Government with the second respondent, the nominated bank assigned with the task at 10.43 a.m., as evident from Ext.P9. The second respondent Bank credited the said amount to the account of the first respondent reportedly at 1.28 p.m. on W.P.(C)No.29119/2013 2 the same day, which is well within the cut off time of 4:00 p.m. on 13.11.2013. This being the position, the petitioner had every right to participate in the tender, but he came to be wrongly excluded, resulting in extension of undue favours to somebody else, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits on instructions that, the tender was scheduled to be opened on 18.11.2013 on which day, because of the declaration of 'Harthal', the proceedings were adjourned to 21.11.2013. The payment result in respect of the petitioner was shown as 'failure' on 18.11.2013 and also on the adjourned date i.e. on 21.11.2013. This was the reason to exclude the petitioner from the purview of the tender, more so in view of the stipulation in the tender condition that, only the persons who have submitted the relevant tender, satisfying all the relevant requirements including payment effected satisfactorily with the result shown 'successful' alone will be permitted to be proceeded further. 3. The learned counsel for the second respondent Bank (the nominated bank of the first respondent) submits on instructions that, the petitioner had effected payment on time and the same was also sought to be credited to the account of the first respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the second respondent Bank (the nominated bank of the first respondent) submits on instructions that, the petitioner had effected payment on time and the same was also sought to be credited to the account of the first respondent. But there was some system failure, as a result of which 'success entry' could not be made available to the first respondent, when the tender was opened. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the second respondent Bank was nominated by the first respondent themselves and if at all there was any mistake either on the part of the first respondent or the second respondent as to the defective system, the blame could not be shifted to the shoulders of the petitioner in any manner. In the said circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner also to take part in the bid. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner as well and to proceed with the matter accordingly, based on the credentials of the parties concerned. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the second respondent Bank that, because of the turn of events, the Bank had reversed entry, whereby the amount deposited by the petitioner was credited back to his account with the Canara Bank, and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that appropriate steps will be taken to have the amount re- deposited with the second respondent, necessary steps shall be completed in this regard forthwith by both the second respondent as well as the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed to the said extent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.