Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 502 (KER)

Luke N. Skaria v. State of Kerala

2013-06-18

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who was a participant to Ext.P1 tender floated by the 3rd respondent in connection with the work pertaining to the improvement of Kattadi-Thalippadam-Kalkulalm Road in Malappuram District, is before this Court challenging the course and proceedings pursued by the respondents 1 to 3 in treating the petitioner as disqualified for not submitting the originals of the 'on line bid', within the specified time. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, on coming across Ext.P1 tender notice, the petitioner submitted the tender 'on line', as prescribed, quoting the rate. It is stated that the petitioner satisfies all the requirements and is duly qualified to participate in the bid. As per the tender notification, the last date for submitting the bid was 11.05.2013, upto 4 p.m., and the date and time of opening of tender was specified as 14.05.2013, at 11 am. After submitting the online bid, the petitioner submitted the documents (hard copies/originals) by sending the same through post and the same was served to the concerned respondent on 14.05.2013 itself. 3. Altogether 'five' tenders were there, which were opened only after 6.30 p.m. as revealed from Ext.P2 proceedings. By this time, the hard copies/originals submitted by the petitioner were also there. However, without any regard to the same, petitioner's bid was rejected and steps were taken to award work to the additional 4th respondent, who came to be impleaded as per order dated 12.06.2013 in I.A.No.7668 of 2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the proceedings are per se illegal and quite arbitrary, causing much loss of public money as well, his quotation being the lowest, according to him. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the tender norms are quite categoric and that it was clearly stipulated that the last date and time for submitting the hard copies/originals of tender quoted 'online', was 14.05.2013 at 11 am. Merely for the reason that the tender proceedings came to be finalized only later (by 6.35 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. it will not give any 'green card' to the petitioner to contend that the hard copies/originals submitted after the prescribed time of 11 a.m. on 14.05.2013 also ought to have been considered along with the other valid tenders. Merely for the reason that the tender proceedings came to be finalized only later (by 6.35 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. it will not give any 'green card' to the petitioner to contend that the hard copies/originals submitted after the prescribed time of 11 a.m. on 14.05.2013 also ought to have been considered along with the other valid tenders. The learned Government Pleader points out that, if the proposition of the petitioner is accepted, there is many a chance for anybody to get the proceedings delayed for one or other reason, awaiting submission of the original documents by post or otherwise by the interested parties and to have the matter proceeded accordingly. The stipulation as to the receipt of the original documents before the date of tender, as it appears in Ext.P1, has necessarily to be interpreted to mean the receipt of the relevant documents on the last date and time of opening 'as specified' and not with reference to the actual time at which the tenders are opened by the concerned authorities, submits this learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent submits that the petitioner has moulded the case on the basis of wrong and misconceived facts as discernible from paragraph 2' of the writ petition. It is stated therein that the delay in forwarding the documents was only due to 'postal delay' particularly 11.05.2013' being Second Saturday and a public holiday for the Government Department and also for the Post Office. "2nd Saturday" is never a holiday for the Postal Office, submits the learned counsel. That apart, the relevant Clause enabling the authorities concerned to take up the tenders on the next date, if the last date happens to be a holiday, is only with respect to the date of opening of the tender and as such, there is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the submission made from the part of the part of the petitioner. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the stipulation with regard to the last date of submitting the tender, the last date and time of opening the tender and such other particulars are clearly given in the tender notice/conditions. A copy of the relevant clause, particularly 'clause No.iii' has been produced separately as Ext.R3(a) along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. A copy of the relevant clause, particularly 'clause No.iii' has been produced separately as Ext.R3(a) along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. It has been categorically asserted therein, that the envelope containing the tender document(s)/bid submission cost, EMD/bid security cost & attested copy of the valid and active Registration Certificate, should reach the department on or before the technical bid opening date and time, failing which, the bid is liable to be rejected. It is also stated that the department shall not be responsible for any postal service delay or any other delay. 7. This Court holds that the date and time of opening as mentioned in the said clause can only be the date and time of opening as already notified and not the actual date and time when the tender is opened, if the proceedings get belated due to some or other reason. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that, there is no merit in the writ petition. Interference is declined and the same is dismissed accordingly.