Kerala High Court
WP(C)/8475/2012 of TECHZONE ENGIENEERS PVT.LTD. Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 8475 of 2012 (H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------------- TECHZONE ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. ` A ' GRADE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 8475 of 2012 (H)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------------------
TECHZONE ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. `A' GRADE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS CONTRACT LICENCE NO.CA-210,DOOR NO.IV/676,FERRY ROAD NORTH KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR REJI P.THOMAS PARAYIL PEACE COTTAGE,CHENGAMPUZHA NAGAR SOUTH KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 033.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS
CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E) BANGLORE CENTRAL ELECTRICAL CIRCLE CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,BANGLORE BANGALORE P.O.-560 001. BANGLORE CENTRAL ELECTRICAL CIRCLE CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,BANGLORE BANGALORE P.O.-560 001.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KOCHI CENTRAL ELECTRIC DIVISION,4TH FLOOR KENDRIYA BHAVAN,KAKKANADU,KOCHI-682 037.
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX(WPC NO.8475/2012)
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTIFICATION NITNO.112/KCED/2011-12 DT.13-02-2012 WITH THE work SCHEDULE.
EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY the PETITIONER BEFORETHE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.54(2)/KCED/2011/671 DT.13-02-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY the PETITIONER TO THE3RD RESPONDENT DT.10/3/2012.
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.54(2)/KCED/2011/758DT.10/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.26/3/2012.
EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.NIT 130/KCED/2011-12ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
R1(a): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE INVITING TENDER PREPARED BY R3.
R1(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.13.3.2012.
R1(c): TRUE COPY OF REVISED NOTICE INVITING TENDER PREPARED BY R3.
R1(d): TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER TO R3 DT.10.3.2012.
R1(e): TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.CPWD 6 FOR e-TENDERING.
R3(f): DETAILS OF OTHER WORKS ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER.
TRUE COPY
pms
P.S. to Judge
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
.........................................................................
Dated this the 31[st] December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner participated in Ext.P1 tender, in connectionwith some electrical installation works. According to thepetitioner, there were three other persons as well to contest forthe bid. But the petitioner's tender came to be the lowest andaccordingly, it was accepted. In the course of furtherproceedings, the petitioner was asked to reduce the amountfurther by way of negotiation which was acceded to and the ratewas reduced accordingly. But the same was refused to beaccepted by the third respondent, stating that the revised offerwas rather conditional and hence directed the petitioner to makeit unconditional. The petitioner has approached this Court byfiling this writ petition, because of the stand taken by therespondents against the proposed steps to cancel the tender. Itis stated that the tender has been subsequently cancelled and re-tender has been notified. But during the course of theproceedings, it was conceded before this Court that re-tenderproceedings have also been kept in abeyance due to the factthat there was only one tenderer.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation before the secondrespondent virtually making clear the stand of the petitionerand seeks for a direction to the second respondent to considerand finalise the same.
3. The learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for therespondents submits that the course pursued by the respondentscannot be assailed in any manner in so far as the offer made bythe petitioner as per Ext.P4 dated 10.03.2012 itself gives aclear idea as to the nature of the offer putforth by the petitioner,which reads as follows:
“With reference to the above, we
hereby agree to execute the above work at arate of overall 10.5% below out quoted rate,provided that if the department could redirectthe offer from K-LITE that you have availed atthe time of deriving the LMR, which was being taken as base for negotiaton, to us, in-orderto enable us for procurement of materials inthe project. ”
It is stated that in response to Ext.P4, Ext.P5 reply was given pointing out that the same was not acceptable and therespondents proceeded with further steps for re-tender, whichwas also subsequently cancelled as there was only one tenderer.
The learned Asst. Solicitor General concedes that therespondents would go for re-tender and that the petitioner canalso participate.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that if the aspects sought to be clarified by the petitioner videExt.P4 is acceptable to the respondents there is no need for re-tender. The relief sought for is to direct the second respondent toconsider and finalise Ext.P6 representation, after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ex.P6 and passappropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if the offer made by the petitioner is acceptable to the second respondent. This shall bedone at the earliest, at any rate, within six weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of the judgment.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk