Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE21T DAY OF FEBRUARY20142ND PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4927 of 2014 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER -------------------------- SIRAJUDHEEN PROPRIETOR, JAMAL SUPER SHOPEE127791 HUSSAINBI COMPLEX, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KARIPOOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN67364. R BY SRI.S.SUJIN SRI N.N SUGUNAPALAN(Sr) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4927 of 2014 (M) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR DATED, 25.10.2013. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED, 31.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED, 11.2.2014 TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M/S.BEVERAGES CONVVENIOUS TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.4927 OF2014--------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2014. JUDGMENT
The petitioner is running a Coffee Shop in Palakkad and is stated as a sole distributor of coffe/tea/cool drinks vending machines in Kerala as appointed by M/s. Jamals Super Shopee. Pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification issued by the respondent, the petitioner participated in the bid. As stipulated under the tender conditions, the petitioner submitted technical bid as well as the price bid separately. It is stated that the technical bid of the petitioner was opened on 22.11.2013 and later the financial bid was also opened on 02.01.2014. It was thereafter that the petitioner was let known of Ext.P2 reply/notice dated 31.01.2014, that the petitioner did not satisfy the qualification by way of experience and hence the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. It is stated that the respondent is proceeding with hasty steps for retender, without any regard to Ext.P3 reply submitted by the petitioner. This made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for immediate interference. W.P.C.No.4927 of 2014 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no pith or substance in the objection now raised after initially qualifying the petitioner for consideration of the price bid. The petitioner seeks to place reliance on Ext.P4 certificate issued by the concerned manufacturer in respect of the sole distributorship of the petitioner and also as to the running of various vending machines.
3. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, the certificate produced by the petitioner does not tally with the requirement in the tender, in so far as most of the premises/destinations shown in Ext.P4 certificates are in the State of Tamilnadu, whereas the certificate issued by the Jamal Super Shoppee has described the petitioner as the sole distributor for the State of Kerala. The insinuations levelled against the petitioner as per Ext.P2 are in the following terms: "1) Certificate issued by M/s. Beverage Convenio bear no date or number as well as name of the authorised signatory. 2) Full address of outlet locations is not mentioned in the said certificate. 3) While the certificate states that M/s. Jamal Super W.P.C.No.4927 of 2014 3 Shoppe as sole distributor in entire state of Kerala, whereas most of the locations is in Tamil Nadu." 4. With regard to the discrepancies between the certificate and the premises/destinations (where the vending machines are being operated by the petitioner), it is to be noted that Ext.P1 tender notification does not stipulate any experience, in running the vending machines to be exclusively within the State of Kerala. It is true that the places/destinations, where the vending machines are being operated by the petitioner, are mostly outside the State, as borne by Ext.P4. This Court does not find any discrepancy in this regard, in so far as the tender notification does not stipulate that the vending machines shall be operated in the State of Kerala itself and in so far as nothing prevents the petitioner from being a distributor of Jamal Super Shoppee in the State of Kerala and at the same time, running the establishment of vending machines at different places outside the State of Kerala. It may be for the petitioner, for appropriate reasons, to decide whether he shall do the vending operations mostly outside the State of Kerala, while confining the distributorship activity to be within the State of Kerala. In so far as he is having the W.P.C.No.4927 of 2014 4 experience as certified by Ext.P4, the claim of the petitioner was liable to be entertained, unless it was so prevented by virtue of specific terms in Ext.P1 tender.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, there are some other mitigating circumstances as well, as noted in Ext.P2. Two other tenderors were also there, whose tenders were also not liable to be considered. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, he will remain as the 'sole tenderor' in the field, which cannot be accepted, for want of competition.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, if it is a case of sole tenderor, by virtue of the public money involved and the course ordered to be pursued as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(c) No.3332 of 2001, the respondent cannot be blamed, if they go for retender. In the said circumstances, interference is declined, making it clear that, if the respondent decides to have retender, it is always open for the petitioner to participate in the same on the basis of his credentials and subject to satisfaction of the W.P.C.No.4927 of 2014 5 qualifying norms. The application, if any, shall be considered in the light of the observations made herein before. Interference is declined and the writ petition stands dismissed with the above observations. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp