Mujeeb Rehman vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 06 January 2022

W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THUR AY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943 WA NO. 10 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23189/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: MUJEEB REHMAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O LATE MUHAMMED BASHEER, PROPRIETOR, B M TRADERS, K P 2/797, THAIVILAKAM, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020. BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN THAYYIB SHA P.S. PAUL BABY RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENERPRISES LIMITED ST.JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, COTTON HILL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 SHAHUL HAMEED PROPRIETOR, M/S AL JAZEERA FURNITURE AND SCRAP DEALER, KUNJALUMOODU, MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012. SRI K.P.HARISH, SR GP FOR R1, SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, FOR R2, AND SRI. G.SUDHEER FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -2- J U D G M E N T S. Manikumar, C. J. Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to award the tender strictly in terms of Exhibit P2 e-tender document and thereby reject the bid submitted by the 3rd respondent; (ii) declare that the petitioner is the valid bidder considering the fact that the petitioner alone has submitted Exhibit P3 price schedule in the tender strictly following the stipulations in Exhibit P2; (iii) declare that Exhibit P4 submitted by the 3rd respondent is in patent violation of the tender conditions and therefore the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent cannot be accepted; (iv) call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same to the extent the same declares the 3rd respondent's tender as 'accepted technical' and 'qualified' by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; (v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to

W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -3- consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 representation submitted by the petitioner, within a timeframe fixed by this Hon'ble Court after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner through an authorized representative.”

After adverting to the rival contentions, writ court, holding that there is no merit, dismissed the writ petition.

Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as hereunder:- Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The grievance highlighted in the writ petition is that the ineligible one Mr. Shahul Hameed, the 3rd respondent, is attempted to be inducted through the back door for the award of a contract by the Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited, the 2nd respondent. Appellant submitted that in Exhibit P4 price schedule submitted by the 3rd respondent, the amount entered in the column for 'basic rate', 'total amount without taxes' and 'total amount with taxes' is the same, and as such, the bid was liable to be rejected. However, after the opening of the bid, the 2nd respondent has permitted the 3rd respondent

W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -4- to add GST amount over and above the amount shown in the column 'amount with taxes'. Appellant further submitted that the arbitrariness and partisanship, the very evil which was sought to be eliminated through the online tender process, has crept into the instant bidding process, as is evident from the acts of the 2nd respondent. Writ court has dismissed the writ petition.

On this day, when the matter came up for admission, posed with a question as to whether the tender has been finalized, Mr. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, the 2nd respondent, submitted that a representation dated 18.10.2021 has been submitted by the appellant, to the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st respondent, and that the same is pending.

He further submitted that inasmuch as the representation dated 18.10.2021 is pending, tender has not been finalized.

Mr. Thomas Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the

W. A. No. 10 of 2022 -5- appellant, submitted that he would withdraw Ext. P6 representation dated 18.10.2021 forthwith, and further submitted that the said representation can even be treated as withdrawn, so as to facilitate finalization of the tender.

Both the learned counsel for the parties submitted that on the withdrawal of Ext. P6 representation dated 18.10.2021, Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director, the 2nd respondent, would finalize the tender on its merits, in terms of the tender conditions. In the light of the above, instant writ appeal is disposed of, accordingly. S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb ////// P. A. TO JUDGE