Kerala High Court
Dileep vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2026
2026:KER:23100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
DILEEP
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN, DIVYALAYAM, PATHAYAKUNNU.P.O,
KOOTHUPARAMBU, KANNUR. MANAGING PARTNER,
CHANDRA LPG PLANT(LLP), PIN - 670691
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.MANILAL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE, VANIJYA BHAVAN, 16 AKBAR ROAD, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110011
2 MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY KARTAVYA BHAVAN,
03 GANAPATH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 GOVERNMENT E-MARKET PLACE(GEM),
REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HEADQUARTERS,
2ND FLOOR, JEEVAN THAARA BUILDING, 5 SANSAD MARG,
NEW PATEL CHOWK, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001
4 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE OFFICE,
PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI,
PIN - 682036
2026:KER:23100
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026
2
5 M/S NEOKO SP ENERGIES PVT LTD, NO. 18,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
RAMANASREE ARCADE, UNIT NO. 119 &120,
1ST FLOOR, MG ROAD, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560001
BY ADV
SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA, CGC
SMT.O.MSHALINA, DSGI,
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHANAN NAMBIAR, R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:23100
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the managing partner of a limited liability partnership firm. The grievance of the petitioner is against the proposal to award the contract based on Exts.P1 and P3 tender notification invited by the 4 th respondent, in respect of bottling assistance for LPG cylinders. In response to the aforesaid tender notification the petitioner, the 5th respondent, and some other persons submitted their tenders. In the technical evaluation, the petitioner received the higher score. When price bids were evaluated, it was found that all the participants had submitted tenders quoting the same price and thus, there was a tie between them. Therefore, initially Ext.P5 email was issued by the 4th respondent, intimating that, the tie will be decided by GeM (Government e-Marketplace), through the random algorithm. Consequently, the 5 th 2026:KER:23100 WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 4 respondent was selected for awarding the work. The petitioner is challenging the same in view of the fact that, as per page 31 of Ext.P1, where, preference and priority is specified, it is mentioned that, if there is a tie at the end, the preference will be given to parties getting more marks in the technical evaluation. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that, since the petitioner is the highest scorer in the technical evaluation, he is entitled to get the work by virtue of the aforesaid clause. The writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.
2. I have heard Sri.C.S. Manilal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.R.Asalatha Varma, the learned CGC for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.M.Gopikrishanan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent, in response to the contentions raised by the 2026:KER:23100 WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 5 petitioner, brought to the notice of this Court, the clauses in Ext.P3, which is the tender document through which, Ext.P1 notice is accessible on the web portal. In Ext.P3, it is clearly specified that, the bid is governed by the General Terms and Conditions and a hyperlink is also provided. On accessing that hyperlink, what is available is the General Terms and Conditions on GeM 4.0 (version 1.24) dated 05.05.2025. In clause 15 of Ext.P3, it is specifically mentioned that, any ATC clause in contravention with GeM GTC clause 4 (xiii)(h) will be invalid. It is also specified in the said clause that, in case of multiple L1 bidders against a service bid, the buyer shall place the contract by selection of a bidder amongst the L1 bidders through a Random Algorithm executed by GeM system. The learned Standing Counsel also made available the General Terms and Conditions dated 05.05.2025, wherein, at page 17 of the 2026:KER:23100 WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 6 general condition in clause (h), it is specifically contemplated that, in case of service bids ,if the multiple L1 bidders have quoted the lowest allowed price for that service, buyer shall place the contract by selection of a bidder amongst the L1 bidders through a Random Algorithm executed by the GeM system. Thus, it was pointed out that, in the light of the aforesaid clauses, the selection was made, based on Random Algorithm, and there is no illegality in it. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, specifically asserted based on the preference and priority clause in page 31 of Ext.P1 that, in case of tie, the selection has to be made, based on the highest score in the technical evaluation.
4. I have carefully gone through the records. It is discernible from the records that, in Ext.P1 itself there are 2026:KER:23100 WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 7 conflicting clauses in relation to the method of selection to be made in case of a tie. In page 29 of Ext. P1, under the clause Price Bid Evaluation, it is specifically mentioned that, in case of tie, the selection should be made as per GeM Modalities and the GeM General Terms and Conditions are to be made applicable. Even though, as rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the clause relating to Preference And Priority, the selection is contemplated based on higher marks in the technical evaluation, it is to be noted in this regard that, in Ext.P3, which is the tender document through which access is provided to Ext.P1, it has been clearly mentioned that, in case of tie, the selection shall be made through a Random Algorithm executed by GeM system. The link for accessing to the General Terms and Conditions on GeM is also specifically provided in Ext.P3 as well. In GeM also, it is 2026:KER:23100 WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 8 specifically reiterated that, in case of tie, the selection has to be made on the basis of Random Algorithm. It is discernible from the tender documents that, the 4 th respondent is bound by the Terms and Conditions and the procedure contemplated under the General Terms and Conditions on GeM, as per the various tender documents. Therefore, the conflict between the two clauses in Ext.P1 has to be understood with reference to the same. Since the General Conditions on GeM contemplates the procedure of selecting the person, based on Random Algorithm, and that the 4th respondent had adopted the said procedure while finalizing the tender, the actions of the said respondent cannot be said to be illegal. Moreover, all these documents were made available through the tender documents and the tender notification. Therefore, when a person is submitting the tender, he is bound by the said terms and conditions.
2026:KER:23100 WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 9 Hence, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere in the selection process already carried out by the 4 th respondent, as the same is in consonance with General Terms and Conditions on GeM, as specified in the tender documents itself.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs 2026:KER:23100 WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE BID DOCUMENT CONTAINING TERMS AND CONDITIONS DATED NIL Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE MARKS PUBLISHED ON 8.1.2026 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE BID DOCUMENT ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.6.2020 Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE PRICES OFFERED BY THE THREE CONTESTING BIDDERS DATED NIL Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 17.2.2026 Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE STATUS OF THE CONTRACT ACCEPTED