Muhammed Haneefa vs. The Managing Director - Kerala High Court, 13 February 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNE AY,THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 41057 of 2018 PETITIONER: MUHAMMED HANEEFA AGED 55 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. HASHMI STEEL, MANIYATT PARAMBA, NADUVATTAM, NORTH BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673015. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS: 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA CLAYS AND CERAMIC PRODUCTS LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CLAY HOUSE, PAPPINISSERI, KANNANORE-670561. 2 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA CLAYS AND CERAMIC PRODUCTS LTD., CLAY HOUSE, PAPPINISSERI, KANNANORE-670561. 3 STEEL INDUSTRIES KERALA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNIT OFFICE BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673015. BY ADVS. DR.THUSHARA JAMES SMT.LATHA ANAND SHRI.RAYMOND GEORGE DIAS SMT.MARIA ELIZABETH WILSON SMT.SNEHA VIJAYAN SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.41057/2018 2 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “Call for the records pursuant to Exhibit P1 and issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P6 complaint and declare the petitioner is the successful bidder.” 2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was a bidder in respect of the tender inviting disposal of cast iron scrap by respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that only two tender forms had been received by the 1st respondent in response to the notice inviting tender. It is stated that the tender was awarded to the 3rd respondent. This is alleged to be in violation of the tender conditions as also illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted complaints before respondents 1 and 2, but no action has been taken.

W.P.(C).No.41057/2018 3 4.A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 1 and 2. It is stated therein that Exhibit P1 tender notice had been issued on 29.10.2018 inviting offers for disposal of 84 (approximate) metric tons of Cast Iron (CI) and Mild Steel (MS) machinery scrap available at its units. 5.It is stated that there were 4 participants including the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the tender. It is stated that the Tender Committee in its meeting held on 30.11.2018 had decided to award the tender to the 3rd respondent which is a Kerala Government Public Sector undertaking. It is stated that the removal of scrap is also complete. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Exhibit R1(a) would show that there were bids only by three bidders. Exhibit R1(a) specifically states that apart from three bidders, there was a bid by the 3rd respondent outside the tender and the offer for disposal of cast iron scrap is at Rs.21.00 per Kg plus GST and for M.S.Scrap is at Rs.18.00 per kg plus GST respectively.

W.P.(C).No.41057/2018 4

The contention of the respondents is that in view of the fact that the 3rd respondent is a Kerala Government undertaking and in view of the credentials of the 3rd respondent, the work was decided to be awarded to the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that the work has been completed as well. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the directions as sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Leaving open the contentions of the petitioner to be agitated in appropriate proceedings, the writ petition is closed. Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj

W.P.(C).No.41057/2018 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE TENDER ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE TENDER FORM DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DYSP OF VIGILANCE, KANNURE. EXHIBIT P6OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A)OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.11.2018 OF THE TENDER COMMITTEE EXHIBIT R2(B)OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STORE PURCHASE MANUAL 2013.PS to Judge