Kerala High Court
Sinoj .I.V vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942
WA.No.942 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12051/2020(F) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
SINOJ .I.V
AGED 37 YEARS
VALIYATH HOUSE, PUTHENCHANDA P.O, PANMANA CHAVARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, GOVENMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 001
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT
DIRECTOR, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD , PROJECT MANAGEMENT
UNIT, SREE BALA BUILDING, TC 11/339, 5TH FLOOR,
KESTON ROAD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
3 SOUTHERN TECH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, TOMY
VALLAMATTAM, VALLAMATTAM BUILDINGS, PANDAPPILLY P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM 686 672
BY SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR, SR.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2020, THE
COURT ON 03-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.942 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of August 2020 SHAJI P.CHALY, J.
The Writ Appeal is filed by the Petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.12051 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020,dismissing the Writ Petition. The subject issue relates to invitation of tender as per Ext.P1 notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 20.01.2020 by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Office of the Project Director, Kerala Road Fund Board, Thiruvananthapuram, for construction of Parakkadavu Bridge Across Manimala River in Pathanamthitta, for a total estimated cost of Rs.7,83,41,245/-. Apparently, the bid was invited in a two bid system, i.e., the technical bid and the financial bid. The technical bid submitted by the appellant was rejected by the tender evaluating authority, which was under challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after taking into account the rival submissions made across the Bar and the pleadings put forth, has held that the appellant has not made out any case of mala fides or irregularity or any extraneous consideration to WA.No.942 OF 2020 3 interfere with the finding of the technical evaluation done by the committee and therefore, refused to quash Ext.P10 intimation dated 15.06.2020, informing the appellant that the tender submitted by the appellant was rejected during the technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that, the tender submitted by the appellant was rejected on the basis of recommendation made by the Chief Engineer(Bridges), who is having personal grudge against the appellant and therefore, the rejection was unfair and vitiated with mala fides and ill motives. It is also submitted that a single person cannot take a decision, particularly when the decision is to be taken by a committee consisting of five members. However, Annexure R1(b) produced along with the statement filed for and on behalf of the respondents would show that the committee neither made any evaluation nor applied its mind, but only followed the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer (Bridges). It is also submitted that the entire action of the respondents are unfair, arbitrary and irrational, especially due to the fact that the Chief Engineer (Bridges) is having personal WA.No.942 OF 2020 4 grudge against the appellant, and naturally he wanted to see that the work is not awarded to the appellant. It is further submitted that, in Ext.P1 notice inviting tender, the sole criteria to be undertaken for pre-qualification to participate in the bid was that the appellant should have successfully completed at least one similar work costing more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work within the last five years, and a certificate to that effect from the executing authority of the completed similar work shall invariably be submitted along with the tender documents, failing which, the tenders will not be accepted. Therefore, according to the appellant, appellant has submitted Ext.P2 certificate of experience issued by the Superintending Engineer (Roads & Bridges), PWD, Thiruvananthapuram, from where it is evident that the appellant has completed successfully the work awarded for the construction of Koorikuzhi bridge across Pallickal River connecting Thazhava Panchayath and Sooranad Panchayath in Kunnathoor constituency, having an estimated cost of Rs.4,64,03,174/-, which would satisfy the requirements to be followed in Ext.P1 notice inviting tender. That apart it is submitted that, though the work WA.No.942 OF 2020 5 was expected to be completed on 07.07.2014, it could be completed only on 20.09.2016, however, the same was not due to any default on the part of the appellant, which would be evident from Annexures AI to AV explanations offered by Superintending Engineer, PWD (Roads & Bridges), Thiruvananthapuram, produced along with I.A.No.1/2020 in the Writ Appeal. It is also submitted that the attempt of the respondents was to favour some other participants in the tender proceedings and the bid submitted by the appellant was the lowest. According to the appellant, since, in earlier tenders participated by the appellant, tenders submitted by the appellant were the lowest, the tender evaluation committee could assume that the tender submitted by the appellant in the tender in question would also be the lowest, and wanted to eliminate the appellant some how or other. Accordingly it is submitted that, the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the relevant aspects and inputs, both legal and factual, before arriving at the conclusion that the decision taken by the tender evaluation committee was in accordance with law and that there are no mala fides, unreasonableness or irrationality in rejecting the WA.No.942 OF 2020 6 technical bid submitted by the appellant.
2. In fact, a statement was filed for and on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, i.e., State of Kerala and The Chief Engineer, PWD, Officer of the Project Director, Kerala Road Fund Board, Project Management Unit, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein it is contended that, in the process of evaluation of the technical bid submitted by the participants in the bid, as per Part VI Qualification Information Clause namely, Annexure R1(a), the past performance of the bidders also need to be considered before awarding the contract. Considering the past performance of the appellant it is submitted that, appellant has entered into agreement for two works in Bridges wing each in Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram districts. Appellant has delayed the works due to lack of men and machinery that includes skilled labourers, supervisors etc. The time for completion was extended 4 times, even then the works are not completed till date. It is also pointed out that one work is at the starting point of the Project, monitored by the Chief Minister. As a result, the appellant was disqualified. It is also submitted that, the grounds raised by the appellant that WA.No.942 OF 2020 7 the appellant should have completed only a similar work with 40% of the estimate of tendered work is not either true or correct. Even though such a condition was put forth, it was only a pre-condition for the submission of the technical bid, and by virtue of the evaluation process on the basis of Annexure R1(a), the tender evaluation committee is entitled to take into account other circumstances in order to identify as to whether the appellant would be able to complete the work to the satisfaction of the authority in terms of the notice inviting tender. It is also submitted that, the work pertaining to Ext.P2 experience certificate produced by the appellant to establish that he has satisfactorily completed a similar work as is contemplated in Ext.P1 notice inviting tender, and that there was no delay on the part of the appellant in completing the work, is seriously disputed by the respondents. It is further submitted that the work pertaining to Ext.P2 certificate of experience was extended four times consequent to the extensions sought for by the appellant, which is evident from Annexures 1 to v produced by the appellant himself. That apart, it is submitted that, even though WA.No.942 OF 2020 8 contentions are advanced during the argument that there is mala fides on the part of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Bridges), no such allegation or specific pleading was made in the writ petition, and that except a vague allegation in the appeal memorandum, no pinpointed allegations are put forth to satisfy the contention so advanced by the appellant. It is also pointed out that, The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Bridges) is not made a party to the writ petition in person thus enabling him to answer the allegation . It is also submitted that, from Ext.P1 notice inviting tender it is quite evident and clear that, all the bidders are to download the entire details before submitting the bid in a proper manner, so as to carry out the evaluation by the bid evaluation committee in accordance with law and in terms of the bidding documents. Therefore it is submitted that, learned Single Judge has taken into account the entire pros and cons and the legal requirements before arriving at the conclusion in the impugned judgment, and accordingly seeks dismissal of the appeal.
WA.No.942 OF 2020 9
3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Dr.K.P.Satheesan, assisted by Adv.Sri.P.Mohandas and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.K.V.Manojkumar, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has addressed the arguments in accordance with the contentions discussed above. The prime contention advanced is that, the sole criteria contained in Ext.P1 notice inviting tender for being qualified in the technical bid evaluation is a completion certificate for a similar work with 40% of the estimated cost of the work in question. It is submitted that, since the appellant has satisfied the other requirements, the tender evaluation committee went wrong in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant. It is also submitted that no reasons are assigned in Ext.P10 communication for rejecting the technical bid, and therefore, it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Bridges) has a grudge against the appellant and it was accordingly that the recommendation was made WA.No.942 OF 2020 10 by the Chief Engineer to reject the technical bid of the appellant, and the tender evaluation committee has not taken into account any other aspects to reject the technical bid of the appellant.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, there is no contention raised in the writ petition at all with respect to any mala fides on the part of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Bridges). Learned Senior Government Pleader had invited out attention to the grounds raised by the appellant, wherein, the sole contention raised is that, the reason is found out by the evaluation committee with oblique motives to favour some other participants of the choice of the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department and further that the 2nd respondent in collusion with some contractors interested, wanted to eliminate the appellant and that is why the tender is rejected stating technical reasons. So also, the Senior Government Pleader has taken us through the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum and submitted that, there are no pleadings put forth by the appellant with respect to any mala fides or irrationality employed WA.No.942 OF 2020 11 by the Chief Engineer in order to reject the technical bid submitted by the appellant. So also, we were taken through Annexure I to Annexure V produced by the appellant along with the appeal memorandum to content and canvas the propositions that the work based on Ext.P2 experience certificate was extended only on the basis of the extensions sought for by the appellant and merely because fine was not imposed, that would not mean that, it was on the basis of the delay or latches on the part of the respondents that the time of completion of the work had to be extended.
6. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar.
7. As is evident from the submissions, the prime contention advanced by the appellant is that, Ext.P2 experience certificate was the sole criteria for evaluating the technical bid. In order to analyse the said contention, we have gone through Ext.P1 notice inviting tender, which read thus:
WA.No.942 OF 2020 12WA.No.942 OF 2020 13 WA.No.942 OF 2020 14 WA.No.942 OF 2020 15
8. It is true that in the notice inviting tender, there was a pre-qualification condition that the participants in the bid should have successfully completed at least one similar work consisting of more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work in question, within the last five years. However fact remains, it was clearly specified in Ext.P1 that all other existing conditions related to bidding in force in the Kerala Public Works Department will be applicable in the tender in question also, unless expressly defined in the bidding document. It was also pointed out there under that, all subsequent government orders connected to tenders and any revision in the rates of taxes would also be applicable to the tender. In fact, the appellant has challenged Ext.P10 communication issued by the tender evaluation committee informing the appellant that his tender was rejected. However, it is clear from Annexure R1(a) produced along with the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 that, a proper evaluation was done by the evaluation committee, wherein it is stated that, the appellant who was qualified for two works have entered WA.No.942 OF 2020 16 into agreement and that, he delayed the works due to lack of men and machinery, skilled workers, etc. It is also pointed out that, those two works were delayed and time of completion was extended four times, even then the works were not completed till date. It is also stated thereunder that, based on the recommendation of the Chief Engineer (Bridges), the technical evaluation committee decided to reject the bid of the appellant. On a scrutiny of Annexure I to Annexure V produced by the appellant along with the appeal memorandum it is clear that, the time was extended on the basis of the request made by the appellant and it was specifically mentioned thereunder that the contractor is not entitled to claim any enhanced rate or other benefits on account of the contract as the extension is granted purely based on the request of the contractor. Therefore, the contention put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the time of completion of the contract relating to Ext.P2 certificate of experience was extended due to the delay and latches on the part of the officials cannot be sustained at all, and such an argument advanced is basically against the contents of the documents produced WA.No.942 OF 2020 17 by the appellant himself.
9. It is also explicit from Annexure R1(a), Part VI Qualification Information that, details of the experience and past performance of the bidder or each party to the Joint Venture on works of a similar nature within the past five years and details of current work in any other contractual commitments shall also be a subject matter of consideration, while evaluating the bid submitted by the appellant. So also, on going through the other documents produced by the appellant relating to other works carried out by him, what we could gather is that, those are not similar types of works meeting the requirements of Ext.P1 notice inviting tender at all. Even though repeatedly arguments are advanced with respect to mala fides in rejecting the technical bid, there is no trace of any pleadings at all, either in the memorandum of writ petition or in the memorandum of appeal with regard to any mala fides employed by the Chief Engineer (Bridges), apart from stating that the intention of the respondents was to show favour to some other participants in the tender. According to us, that would not satisfy the requirement in order to consider WA.No.942 OF 2020 18 the question of mala fides alleged by a party. Even for considering such a contention there should be a specific pleading explaining the nature of mala fides, and by mere employment of the word mala fide frequently in the submissions would not suffice to satisfy the requirements of law or rather it would not replace the mandate of law. To put it otherwise, materials are absolutely lacking to consider any such contention. Therefore, there is no basis and substance in the arguments so advanced by the Senior counsel for the appellant. We also find that the tender evaluation committee has taken into account various aspects, in the matter of the works carried out by the appellant and it was accordingly that the tender evaluation committee has arrived at its own conclusion that the appellant is not a technically qualified person to consider the financial bid submitted by the appellant. Moreover as per Ext. P1 notice inviting tender, at the time of opening technical bid the bidder or his representative shall be present but the appellant has no case that he was not present, and therefore, it has to be presumed that he was present when WA.No.942 OF 2020 19 the bid was opened and evaluated. That apart it is a specific term in the tender notice that the authority is not bound to assign any reason while rejecting a bid. In that view of the matter,the petitioner having participated in the tender fully knowing the rules of the game cannot turn around and contend that the action is bad for want of reasons in the order impugned. Above all EXT p10 is only an intimation consequential to Ext R1(b) evaluation by the committee in the presence of the petitioner as is presumed. By this time it is well settled that mere technicalities would not stand in the way of the government preferring a contractor of its choice to carry on its work and the writ court would not be justified in undertaking an evaluation process to replace the factual findings of the statutory authority. Which thus means the government undertaking the public works to satisfy the needs of the citizens should have sufficient play in the joints to finalise its partner in the commercial venture, and the courts are not expected to create any fetter or embargo in the freedom enjoyed by the government normally, and ordinarily. That said the term "successfully" employed in the notice inviting WA.No.942 OF 2020 20 tender with regard to the work completed by the bidder to pre-qualify the bid is very sensible and meaningful. As discussed above the experience certificate, Extp2 would speak in volumes that the appellant was not successful in completing the work in time and the evaluation in that regard is to be left to the absolute discretion and wisdom of the authority, and the realm of interference of the writ court would only be under limited circumstances of serious and poignant mistakes of the State in discharging the functions entrusted to it under part iii of the Constitution Of India.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant has not made out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
10.However learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the judgments of the Apex Court in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt.Ltd V/s. Devkishan Computer Pvt. Ltd and Others [2016 KHC 6512:AIR 2016 SC 3585 :2016 (8) SCC 446] and in Silpi Constructions V/s. Union of India [2019 (11) SCALE 592] to canvas the proposition that if there are mala fides, the writ court would be justified in interfering with the WA.No.942 OF 2020 21 rejection of a bid.
11. Learned Senior Government Pleader has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Silpi Constructions (supra) and he has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Elektron Lighting Systems and Private Limited and Another, wherein, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular V/s. Union of India [1994 (6) SCC 651] and Air India Ltd. V/s. Cochin International Airport Ltd [2000(2) SCC 617] were taken into account, to canvas the proposition that unless and until there are adequate reasons, the writ court would not interfere with the contractual matters which are commercial in nature. Even though the legal position is well settled in the matter of interference with contractual matters by writ courts, we think it is only appropriate that some of the relevant judgments to the context rendered by the Apex Court are discussed in order to arrive at a logical and safe conclusion.
12. In RD Shetty V/s. International Airport Authority of India and Others [1979 (3) SCC 489], it is held that, it is a well settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to documents as to statutes that, save WA.No.942 OF 2020 22 for compelling necessity, the Court should not be prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a document "and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use." It was further held thereunder that, to reject words as insensible should be the last resort of judicial interpretation, for it is an elementary rule based on common sense that no author of a formal document intended to be acted upon by the others should be presumed to use words without a meaning, and the Court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable. Therefore we are of the view that the entire contents of ExtP1 is to be taken into account in order to understand the requirements of the contract and mere production of the completion certificate of a similar work is not the sole criteria to finalise the technical bid.
13. In Trilochan Mishra V/s. State of Orissa [1971 (3) SCC 153], it was held that, merely because the Government preferred one tender to another, no complaint WA.No.942 OF 2020 23 can be entertained and the Government certainly has a right to enter into a contract with a person well known to it and specially one who has faithfully performed his contracts in the past in preference to an undesirable or unsuitable or untried person, and moreover, Government is not bound to accept the highest tender but may accept a lower one in case it thinks that the person offering the lower tender is on an overall consideration to be preferred to the higher tenderer. In Tata Cellular (supra), it was held that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent any arbitrariness or favouritism, however, there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. It is also held thereunder that, Government is the guardian of the finance of the State and it is expected to protect the financial interest of the State and the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender, is always available to the Government.
14. After evaluating the facts and figures, in Tata Cellular supra, the Apex Court has laid down the legal principles to be followed while considering a writ WA.No.942 OF 2020 24 petition in respect of contractual matters. Paragraph 94 is relevant to the context which read thus:
"(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.
Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi- administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by malafides.
6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy
WA.No.942 OF 2020 25
administrative burden on the administration and
lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
15. In Jagdish Mandal V/s. State of Orissa [2007(14) SCC 517], the Apex Court has conducted a thread bare evaluation of the earlier judgments rendered by the Apex Court and has held that a contract is merely a transaction and evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. It is further held therein that, the principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance and if the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. It was also held that, the power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes and attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by WA.No.942 OF 2020 26 exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted, since such interference, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. It was also held by the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal (supra) that interference in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review is permissible only if; (i) the process adopted or decision made is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or (ii)the same is so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible authority acting under law would have arrived at it or (iii) it affected the public interest.
16. In Central Coalfields Ltd. V/s. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) [2016(8)SCC 622], the Apex Court has held that, the issue of acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party, but also from the point of view of the employer, and relied upon the judgment in Naseer Ahamed V/s. King Emperor, [AIR 1936 PC 253(2)] to hold that, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in WA.No.942 OF 2020 27 that way or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Even though learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Silpi Constructions (supra), we are of the view that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment is not at all helpful to the appellant. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 29 would speak in eloquence the said proposition drawn by us, which read thus:
"25. That brings us to the most contentious issue as to whether the learned single judge of the High Court was right in holding that the appellate orders were bad since they were without reasons. We must remember that we are dealing with purely administrative decisions. These are in the realm of contract. While rejecting the tender the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it be a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. These decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. If reasons are to be given at every stage, then the commercial activities of the State would come to a grinding halt. The State must be given sufficient leeway in this regard. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to give reasons in the counter to the writ petition which they have done.
26. Two reasons were given by the Department. One was that the sister company had been given a contract for some construction in Chennai zone and WA.No.942 OF 2020 28 there was a huge delay in the execution of the project. According to the Petitioners, extension had been granted to them from time to time by the authorities and the grant of extension itself indicates that there were reasonable grounds for extension of the project and, therefore, this ground could not have been taken to reject the technical bid.
29. However, as far as the first objection is concerned, merely because extension of time has been granted, it does not in any manner mean that the Department has come to the conclusion that the contractor is not at fault. Sometimes extension is granted because a lot of money has already been invested and cancellation of contract and appointment of new contractors would lead to unnecessary litigation and increase in costs. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x "
17. So also lack of assigning reasons was considered by the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal (supra) and held that in view of the relevant clause of the tender conditions, the acceptance of the tender was entirely at the discretion of the accepting authority and no tenderer could require the authority to show cause for rejection of the tender and further that since there was no penal WA.No.942 OF 2020 29 consequences on the basis of the rejection of the bid tender being defective, there was no need to give any opportunity to tenderer to show cause at that stage.
18. The invitation of tender its processing and finalisation is the domain of the tender inviting authority/evaluation authority and normally a writ court exercising the power of judicial review would not interfere with the decision taken unless there are proved mala fides or the decision taken is so irrational and beyond comprehension. Further more, the decision is taken on the basis of the evaluation methodology adopted by the authority in accordance with manual prescribed for the purpose of Public Works Department and a decision taken based on various factual circumstances is not expected to be interfered with by re-evaluating the process and arriving at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by fact finding authority. Bearing in mind the situations discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the grounds raised by the appellant are feeble, peripheral and without any abstract foundation and thus, restraining us to arrive at a different conclusion and ratio than the one arrived at by the learned Single WA.No.942 OF 2020 30 Judge.
19. Judged accordingly we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has not made out any case of arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality or any other legal infirmities justifying interference in the tender in question, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in declining the reliefs sought for by the appellant.
Needless to day, appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE uu/28.7.2020 WA.No.942 OF 2020 31 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB10/2703/10 DATED 12-08-2014 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB-10/2703/10 DATED 28-2-2015 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB-10/2703/10 DATED 18-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB10/2703/10 DATED 29-3-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB10/2703/10 DATED 25-07-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.