Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 9756 OF 2024 PETITIONER:
SOUMYA PLASTICS, OLLUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR, DAISY VINCENT, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O VINCENT, PALIAKKARA HOUSE, CHIRA ROAD, OLLUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN – 680306 BY ADV NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN – 695003 2 SECRETARY, ELECTRONICS & IT ,GOVT. OF KERALA ROOM NO. 264, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, INDIA, PIN CODE - 688 001, PIN – 688001 4 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY KERALA STARTUP MISSION, G3B, THEJASWINI, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 69581 5 AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, AROOR GRAMA ALAPPUZHA ,KERALA, PIN – 688534 6 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN – 688001 7 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRSIHI BHAVAN AROOR, AROOR P.O, KERALA, PIN – 688534 8 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, VELLAKINAR, VAZHICHERRY, HEAD P.O,ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688001
WPC 9756/24 2 9 KAVERI FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PROPRIETOR FRANCIS M.V, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O M.M VARGHESE 150/3, NORTH PARAVUR-KOTTUVALLY ROAD, NEAR BLOCKPADI, KAITHARAM P.O,ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683519 10 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001 BY ADV K.B.REKHA - R5 SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 9756/24 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the award of contract by the 7th respondent to the 9th respondent, saying that this is causing huge loss to the Public Exchequer, enabling illegal enrichment to the latter, as also certain unnamed Government officials. They say that, therefore, they have preferred Ext.P8 representation before the 8th respondent, as also Ext.P7 before the Government; and seek that the same be directed to be considered, without any avoidable delay.
2.
In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Naveen Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that, since the contract in question has been awarded by the 7th respondent – Agricultural Officer, such action can be reviewed by the 6th respondent – Principal Agricultural Officer;
and added that he will not stand in the way of liberty being reserved to the petitioner for such purpose. He, however, asserted that the attempt of the petitioner to involve the Government officials and the Police is premature and unnecessary at this stage, because the allegations remain unanswered and uncontested.
WPC 9756/24 4 3.
I have gone through the allegations and imputations made in this Writ Petition very intently.
4.
The petitioner impels assertions against the 9th respondent and imputes that they are now sought to be benefited by the illegal action of the 7th respondent, in being awarded with a contract they are not eligible to. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader, these are matters which will have to be considered by the competent Authority at the first instance because, this Court cannot evaluate them affirmatively while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it will involve assessment of facts and documents.
5.
I am, therefore, of the firm view that this Court will be justified in acceding to the request of the petitioner and to the suggestion of the learned Government Pleader, thus leaving liberty to the former to move the 6th respondent appropriately through a representation, if he is so desirous.
6.
I am persuaded to the afore course also because, it is conceded by the petitioner that the contract has already been awarded to the 9th respondent; and obviously, therefore, it is only if a proper
WPC 9756/24 5 enquiry is done and they are found to be ineligible, can any further orders be issued against them. In such perspective, I do not think that it is necessary for this Court to issue notice to them and feel it will be justified to dispose of this Writ Petition at the stage of admission itself, since it will cause no prejudice to them.
Resultantly and for the reasons above, I allow this Writ Petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to move the 6th respondent – Principal Agricultural Officer, with an appropriate representation; and if this is done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be taken up and disposed of by the said Authority, after affording them, the 9th respondent, as also any other person who may be interested, an opportunity of being heard;
thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks thereafter.
Needless to say, the award of contract to the 9th respondent shall abide by the decision to be taken by the 6th respondent in terms of the afore directions.
Sd/- RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
WPC 9756/24 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9756/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NO. AO-01/2024 DATED 28-02-2024 , PUBLISHED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NO. AO-01/2024 TENDER SUMMARY REPORTS DATED 28-02-2024, PUBLISHED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23-2-2024 BY 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005 .
Exhibit P 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MANDATORY PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT OF NON-IT PRODUCTS FROM STARTUPS REGISTERED UNDER KERALA STARTUP MISSION (KSUM) AS STATED IN G.O.(MS) NO.2/2022 SPD DATED 5-7-2022 APPENDED WITH GUIDELINES AS PER G.O.(MS) NO.5/2023/ SPD DATED 22-05-2023 .
Exhibit P 5 THE TRUE COPY OF GST BILL DATED 22-11-2022 ISSUED BY 9TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P 6 THE TRUE COPY OF GST DETAILS OF 9TH RESPONDENT FROM WEBSITE.
Exhibit P 7 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1-3- 2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 .
Exhibit P 8 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 6-3- 2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 8TH RESPONDENT.