P.I. Liyakath Ali vs. State Of Kerala
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNE AY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/14TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.25988 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER: P.I. LIYAKATH ALI, AGED 54, S/O IBRAHIM, PROPRIETOR, GOLD STAR, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 553. BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAMED YOUSEFF T.M.(SR) SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SRI.SUBIN K SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELIBHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020. 3 DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 553. 4 DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, IDUKKI TALUK, KATTAPPANA P.O., PIN-685 553, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5 DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, DEVEKULAM TALUK, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 613. 6 MANAGER, NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT(NFSA), SUPPLYCO HEAD OFFICE, MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020. 7 THE VIGILANCE MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, (SUPPLYCO), MAVELIBHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020. WP(C)No.25988/2020 2 8 MOHAMMED ISMAIL, SAFAMANZIL, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 553. 9 THE MANAGING PARTNER, AST ENTERPRISES, SCB BUILDING, AMBALAMPADY, MEKKADAMPU P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-682 316. 10 P.A. PAULACHAN, THIRUTHINADHI HOUSE, CHAMBANNUR, ANGAMALI SOUTH P.O., PIN-683572. 11 SAM JOSEPH, AGE NOT KNOWN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, VALIYAPARAMBIL, CHELAKKOMBU P.O., KARUKACHAL PIN 686 540 (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 19.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.3/2021) R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN R2-R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R8-R9 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) R10 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU R10 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.25988/2020 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021 The petitioner is a Transporting Contractor with the 2nd respondent-Supplyco since 2017. Ext.P1 series would show that the petitioner has been transporter of Supplyco. By Ext.P2, tenders were invited for transporting contracts for various Taluks. The petitioner submitted tenders for Idukki, Devikulam and Udumbanchola Taluks. The technical bids were opened on 17.09.2020 by the Technical Evaluation Committee of respective Taluks and Technical evaluations were made. The petitioner's technical bid was cleared by the authorities finding no defects or draw backs. The petitioner was expecting that on opening the financial bids, he will be awarded the contract in the three taluks.
However, on 07.10.2020, the Vigilance officer of the Supplyco issued a report to the authorities informing that
WP(C)No.25988/2020 4 the petitioner has been engaged in rice business. On that ground, the 2nd respondent rejected the bids of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the rejection of technical bids of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 08.10.2020 to the Managing Director, Supplyco and the Depot Manager. In the representation, the petitioner submitted that he is not dealing in wholesale/retail business of rice and that he had stopped in dealing rice business long back. As there was no positive response from the respondents, the petitioner was forced to file WP(C)No. 22013/2020 before this Court. This Court directed the Managing Director of Supplyco to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass orders on his representation within a period of two weeks. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P11(a) written statement before the Managing Director of Supplyco. However, this representation was rejected by the respondents as per Ext.P12 order dated 10.11.2020. WP(C)No.25988/2020 5
The petitioner would submit that the Vigilance Officer submitted a report adverse to the petitioner on the basis of a complaint preferred by one Sam Joseph. The said Sam Joseph was an employee of the brother-in-law of the 8th respondent and the 8th respondent is a transporting contractor. The petitioner would further submit that on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer and rejection of the bids of the petitioner, a further order Ext.P12(a) was passed by the respondents, whereby it was directed that in view of the findings against the petitioner, the contracts of the petitioner if any subsisting in any place, shall also be terminated.
The petitioner challenges the impugned orders at Exts.P4, P4(a) to P4(d), P8(a), P12 and P12(a), in this writ petition on the following grounds: The Vigilance Officer of Supplyco has no power or authority to order that the bids of the petitioner should be rejected. The petitioner submits that he was formerly a headload worker. Being a former
WP(C)No.25988/2020 6 headload worker, the petitioner is in a position to get loading and unloading works done at a comparatively low but reasonable rates. This advantage of the petitioner made him a contractor who can quote lesser amount for transportation contracts. Therefore the rival contractors were waiting to oust the petitioner from the field at any cost. The complaint by the aforesaid Sam Joseph and adverse report filed by the Vigilance Officer is a result of the vengeance of the rival contractors.
The petitioner further pointed out that technical bids were open and the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was long thereafter, after a period of 20 days. This itself would show that the rejection is pre-planned and executed.
The petitioner would further submit that he is not a dealer in rice. However, at the instance of the Supplyco itself, more than 8 months before the tender date, the petitioner had supplied a limited quantity of branded item of
WP(C)No.25988/2020 7 rice to the Supplyco. That isolated supply done at instance of the Supplyco more than 8 months back, cannot be taken to described the petitioner as a dealer in rice. Even if an isolated transaction can be relied on to treat the petitioner as a dealer, the respondents ought to have noted that the petitioner dealt with the rice sale eight months ago and thereafter the petitioner did not indulge in sale of rice.
The petitioner would further submit that Clause (11) (e) of Ext.P2 is not intended to apply in such circumstances. Clause 11(e) provides that those persons or his/her close relatives dealing wholesale/retail business of rice/wheat in the State are not eligible for apply for the tender. The GST licence of the petitioner would show that the petitioner is not a dealer in rice. The isolated instance occurred eight months ago will not disqualify the petitioner under Clause 11 (e) of Ext.P2 tender.
The petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daffodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and
WP(C)No.25988/2020 8 another v. State of U.P. and another [2019 KHC 7250] to contend that even though the issue involved is a commercial transaction relating to tender, when such gross illegalities are brought to the notice of this Court, this Court can definitely exercise the power of judicial review. No adverse orders can be passed against any person without giving him an opportunity to represent. The petitioner has been branded as ineligible to apply for tender without he being extended with an opportunity of hearing.
The learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner further argued that the 8th respondent did not upload the requisite affidavit along with technical bids for Udumbanchola and Idukki Taluks. The 8th respondent was the lowest tenderer in the financial bid for Chingavanam FCI to Kattappanna and Angamaly FCI to PDS Kattappana. However the 8th respondent unilaterally resiled from those bids. As the 8th respondent resiled from bids, his other bids cannot be considered and the entire
WP(C)No.25988/2020 9 EMD has to be forfeited.
Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 submitted that the rejection of the bids of the petitioner and selection of contractors, were done perfectly in accordance with law. After the opening of technical bids and before opening of financial bid, respondents 1 to 7 learnt that the petitioner has been doing business in rice violating the conditions in Clause 11(e) of Ext.P2. Therefore the bids submitted by the petitioner were rejected. Contracts were awarded to the lowest tender.
The petitioner has conceded that he has been doing business in rice. The contention of the petitioner that he has dealt with only in branded rice, not affecting the business of the Supplyco, cannot be accepted. The petitioner was ineligible to bid. As the petitioner was found to be disqualified, the respondents issued Ext.P12(a) letter dated 20.11.2020 directing that if the petitioner is currently doing any transportation work, those works should be
WP(C)No.25988/2020 10 cancelled. The respondents 2 to 7 have acted bona fide in accordance with the terms of the tender notification and the tender conditions. The interim order passed by this Court is affecting supply of essential articles in the area and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9 pointed out that under clause 11(e) of Ext. P2, there is no distinction between branded rice or any other rice. Anybody who is dealing in rice is ineligible to bid and the petitioner was found disqualified on the basis of an enquiry made by the Vigilance Officer. There was no undue haste in passing Ext.P12 order. In the judgment in WP(C) No. 22013/2020, this court ordered to consider and dispose of the petition of the petitioner within two weeks.
The learned counsel for 8th and 9th respondents further pointed out that the petitioner has admitted that he has been dealing in rice business. Still in the affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext.R8(a), the petitioner stated that he is
WP(C)No.25988/2020 11 not doing any such business. The petitioner has filed a false affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9 stated that pursuant to the opening of the financial bids, the 9th respondent has been appointed as contractor and work orders are also issued. In the circumstances, the writ petition is only to be dismissed, contended the counsel for respondent 8 and 9. 15. The counsel for the 10th respondent argued that the petitioner himself has given a statement before the Vigilance Officer admitting that he has dealings in Ponni and biriyani rice. Now the petitioner cannot turn around and submit that he has no dealing in rice items. The counsel for the 10th respondent supported the arguments made on behalf of respondents 2 to 9. 16. I have heard learned senior counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to
WP(C)No.25988/2020 12 7, learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9 and learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent.
The Clause 11 (e) of Ext.P2 tender notice stipulates that those persons or his/her close relatives dealing in wholesale/retail business of rice/wheat in the State are not eligible for applying for the tender. On the basis of a complaint received from one Sam Joseph, the Vigilance Officer caused an enquiry and found that the petitioner has been supplying rice to Supplyco. As the petitioner was dealing in rice trade, the Vigilance Officer issued Ext.P8(a) proceedings finding that grant of contract to the petitioner who is dealing in rice trade, is against the conditions of tender notification and is likely to generate complaints in future. On the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer, the respondents disqualified the petitioner from technical clearance. This court do not find it unreasonable.
The contention of the petitioner is that technical
WP(C)No.25988/2020 13 bids were originally opened and processed on 17.09.2020. As on that date the petitioner’s technical bid was also cleared. After 20 days, on 07.10.2020, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. This is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable. In this regard, it is to be noted that when the technical bids were processed on 17.09.2020, there were no complaints against the petitioner to the effect that he has been involved in rice business. However subsequently the Vigilance Officer of Supplyco found that the petitioner has been supplying rice to the Supplyco itself. As the said factor was against the conditions of tender, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected.
The petitioner's further contention is that due to his past experience in the loading unloading area, he was in an advantageous position to quote lowest bids and knowing this advantage of the petitioner, other competitors wanted to oust him from bidding. Ext. P8(a) was issued by the Vigilance Officer on 07.10.2020 and on the same day the
WP(C)No.25988/2020 14 technical bid of the petitioner which was earlier cleared, was rejected. Ext. P8(a) was therefore a design only to debar the petitioner from bidding. This Court finds that Ext. P8(a) would indicate that the said order was not issued spontaneously. Ext. P8(a) refers to a proceeding of Manager, NFSA dated 04.09.2020. Therefore it is evident that the Vigilance officer has conducted an enquiry on the basis of a complaint received earlier and Ext. P8(a) is only a result of such enquiry. The petitioner would contend that the Vigilance Officer of Supplyco has no authority to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P8(a). This Court is not inclined to accept the said argument. Dealing in rice and wheat is a disqualification for bidders. If there are complaints against the bidders in this regard, the Supplyco can make appropriate enquiry through a Vigilance Officer. Ext.P8(a) is a result of such enquiry. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in Supplyco accepting enquiry report of its Vigilance Officer.
WP(C)No.25988/2020 15
The further contention of the petitioner is that after clearing his technical bid, the petitioner was disqualified during the processing of financial bid, which is impermissible. But from the pleadings made by the respondents 2 to 7 and the documents made available to this Court, it is evident that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was before 4:30 PM on 07.10.2020 and opening of the financial bids was after 4:30 PM. The respondents 2 to 7 specifically stated that due to the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, his financial bid was not opened at all. In such circumstances it cannot be said that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on 07.10.2020 has vitiated the tender proceedings.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the term “dealing” referred in Clause 11(e) of Ext.P2 must be taken as current dealing. The petitioner had stopped dealing in rice eight months before the tender. This court is unable to accept the said
WP(C)No.25988/2020 16 argument. The petitioner was doing trade in a number of edible items. He has GST registration. The petitioner has conceded before the authorities that he has dealing in rice also eight months ago. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the ouster of the petitioner based on Clause 11 (e) is illegal or arbitrary.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Sam Joseph who made a complaint against the petitioner was an employee of the relative of the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent being a competitor, the complaint was made malafide and therefore the petitioner ought not have been excluded based on an enquiry emanating from such complaint. Evenif it is true that the complaint was made with vested interest, the petitioner has admitted that he had dealings in rice, which factor would disqualify the petitioner from bidding. The further allegation of the petitioner is that the 8th respondent did not upload requisite affidavits along with his tender and therefore the 8th
WP(C)No.25988/2020 17 respondent also ought to have been disqualified. The 8th respondent would submit that while uploading affidavits in respect of bids relating to various Taluks, some pages of the affidavits happened to be duplicated. However on noticing this, the petitioner had informed the Tendering Authority about the mistake and produced the original affidavits.
It is further alleged that the 8th respondent had resiled from certain bids and therefore following Clauses 11(6), 17 and 18, the 8th respondent ought to have been disqualified for grant of any contract. The counsel for the 8th respondent however would deny the allegation and submit that though the petitioner has expressed his willingness to grant contract in respect of certain areas to any other person, the petitioner has not resiled from entering into contract. Therefore this court does not find merit in the said contention of the petitioner.
However, it is to be noted that on the basis of the recommendations of the Vigilance Officer, not only the
WP(C)No.25988/2020 18 petitioner was ousted from bidding, but also by Ext.P12(a), the respondents have directed to terminate all existing contracts of the petitioner. While rejection of bid may not require a prior notice, respondents 2 to 7 cannot terminate an existing contract without notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for respondent 8 and 9 would submit that the existing contract of the petitioner is only a temporary contract liable to be terminated when the Supplyco appoints new contractors. Furthermore, the petitioner has admitted his disqualification. Therefore grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would only be an empty formality and the principles of natural justice cannot be extended to such an extent. This court is not inclined to accept the said argument of the counsel for the respondents 8 and 9. The petitioner has a case that his supply of rice was only on a few occasions, that too to Supplyco only and was at the instance of Supplyco itself. If the said contention
WP(C)No.25988/2020 19 of the petitioner is correct, then even though he will be disqualified for participating in Ext. P2 tender due to Clause 11(e) therein, in the matter of termination of existing contracts that will be an element to be considered.
For the facts and reasons stated above the challenge made by the petitioner against proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 has to fail. The writ petition is however allowed to the limited extent of setting aside Ext. P12(a). Respondents 2 to 7 however will be at liberty to terminate the existing contract of the petitioner with notice to him or as and when new contractors are appointed in the area. N. NAGARESH
JUDGE ncd
WP(C)No.25988/2020 20 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 17/05/2017 EXECUTED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DT.12.5. 17. EXHIBIT P1(a) photocopy of the agreement dtd. 10.12.2018 executed into by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent for the year 2018-19 EXHIBIT P1(b) photocopy of the agreement dtd.01-01- 2019 executed by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent for the year 2019-
EXHIBIT P1(c) photocopy
of the agreement dtd.18.05.2020
executed
by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent for the year 2019-20. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE NFSA 5- 17016/20 DATED 15.07.2020. EXHIBIT P2(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM NFSA 5/17016/20 DATED 30.7.2020 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTO COPY OF THE RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERATED TENDER
STANDS
OF TENDERS
FOR UDUMPANCHOLA. EXHIBIT P4(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERAGED TENDER STATUS OF TENDERS FOR IDUKKI. EXHIBIT P4(b) PHOTO COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERATED TENDER STATUS OF TENDERS FOR AND DEVIKULAM TALUK.
WP(C)No.25988/2020 21 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 8.10.2020. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE TECHNICAL BID AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(b) PHOTO COPY OF THE BIDS OF RESPONDENTS WITH RATES QUOTED EXHIBIT P6(c) PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6(d) PHOTO
COPY
OF JUDGMENT
IN WP(C0NO.35249/2018 EXHIBIT P7 PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT DATED 10.10.2020. EXHIBIT P7(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT DATED 10.10.2020. EXHIBIT P8 PHOTO COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE INTERNAL NOTE TO THE MANAGER NFSA DATED 7.10.2020. EXHIBIT P9 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER DATED 23.10.2020 EXHIBIT P10 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.22013/2020 DATED 27.10.2020. EXHIBIT P11 PHOTO GRAPH OF THE COVER OF THE PONNI RICE. EXHIBIT P11(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
WP(C)No.25988/2020 22 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2020. EXHIBIT P12 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2020. EXHIBIT P12(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY OF AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER DATED 20.11.2020. EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIDS OF RESPONDENTS WITH RATES QUOTED. EXHIBIT P13(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REIGHT TO INFORMATION APPLICATION
SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY
OF THE JUDGMENT
IN WPC.NO.35249/2018. EXHIBIT P15 PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.09.10.2020 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P15(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD. 13- 10-2020 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GENERAL SALE TAX (GST) REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P16(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS OF THE GST REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE GST. EXHIBIT P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19-01-2021 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT NFSA MANAGER EXHIBIT P17(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF TRANSPORTING CONTRACTORS ANNEXED TO EXT.P17. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R2(a) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY SAM JOSEPH TO
WP(C)No.25988/2020 23 THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R2(b) THE PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE R2(c) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 20.11.2020 INTIMATION. EXHIBIT R8 A TRUE COY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/8/2020 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH HI TENDER FOR THE CONTRACT SUBMITTED FOR UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK EXHIBIT R8 BOF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/8/2020 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH HIS TENDER FOTHT COTNRACT SUBMITTED FOR IDUKKI TALUK EXHIBIT R8 COF THE STATUS REPORT OF THE TENDER FINALISED AS ON 7/10/2020 AS PUBLISHED IN THE WBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R8 DOF THE THE APPROVED TRANSPORTATION RATES ISSED BYTHE 6T RESPONDENT FOR UDUMPAHNCHOLA TALUK EXHIBIT R8 EOF THE LETTER DATED 3/12/2020 OF THE PETITONER ADDRESSED OT THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R9 AOF TH EORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 31/8/207 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANC MANAGER,
SUPPLYCO
TALUK
DEPOT, NEDIMKANDAM EXHIBIT R9 BOF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5/1/2019 DRAWN UP BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE 9TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R9 DOF THE COMUNICATION DATED 27/11/2020 INTIMATING OF THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THE RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR EXHIBIT R9 EOF THE BANK GURARANTEE BOND
WP(C)No.25988/2020 24 ISSUED BYTHE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA ON BEHALF OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 10(a)OF THEREPORT OF THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, TOGETHER WITH THE STATEMENT FIVEN BY THE PETITIONER, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.