Kerala High Court
Johnson P.A vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 22 September, 2016
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 33658 of 2016 (F)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
JOHNSON P.A,
AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O. ANTHONY, PUNNELIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PARIYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ROADS SUB DIVISIONS, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 121.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 33658 of 2016 (F)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 22.09.2016.
EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF 14 PARCELS CENT BY SPEED
POST BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER.
EXT. P3 TRUE COP OF THE REQUEST DATED 14.10.2016 MADE BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS, WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THE
RESPONDENT ON 14.10.2016.
EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
15.10.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.33658 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a registered contractor in the Public Works Department. Respondent has issued a tender notice in respect of 31 road works within the Irinjalakuda Roads Division. As per Ext.P1, bid has to reach the office of the respondent by registered post or speed post on or before 14.10.2016 at 3 p.m. Petitioner has quoted the tender for a total number of 14 works (Work Nos.18 to 31). Petitioner has submitted the bid by speed post from Kallettumkara RMS Speed Post Office on 12.10.2016. On 13/10/2016, a harthal was called for and it is known that tender did not reach the office of the respondent on 13.10.2016. On an enquiry with the post office, petitioner understood that, the tender has not been delivered to the office of respondent even at noon of 14.10.2016. Thereupon petitioner has filed an application before the respondent explaining the circumstances under which the tender submitted by the petitioner did not reach the W.P.(C). No.33658 of 2016 2 office of the respondent. According to the petitioner, respondent did not accept the request of the petitioner made as per Ext.P3 and opened the tender at 3.30 p.m. on 14.10.2016. Later petitioner came to know that actually 14 tenders (Sl.No.18 to 31) quoted by the petitioner alone were opened, and bids in work tender for item Nos.1 to 17 in Ext.P1 was not opened for reasons best known to them. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction this writ petition is filed.
2. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is contended that, the tender did not reach the office of the 1st respondent before 3 p.m. on 14.10.2016. Petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation before the respondent. It is also stated the tender was invited as per publication and uploaded on 30.09.2016 in the PWD website with last date of receipt as on 14.10.2014, at 3 p.m. There was sufficient time given to the contractors to send the tenders. Even the tenders posted in the morning of 14.10.2016, reached the office of the respondent before 3 W.P.(C). No.33658 of 2016 3 p.m. Harthal was not a reason for delay in delivery of tenders since most of the tenders were received in the office was posted on 14.10.2016. Petitioner has filed a request at 3.25 p.m. on 14.10.2016 to adjourn the opening of tenders for one more day. According to the respondent, the delay was occurred not due to any fault on the part of the respondent and therefore, petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference of this court under the writ jurisdiction.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.
4. The sole question remains to be considered is whether the tender has reached the office of the respondent before 3 p.m. on 14.10.2016. Even according to the petitioner, petitioner has submitted tender by speed post which did not reach the office of the respondent. Therefore, from the contentions raised by the petitioner itself, it is clear, petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions as per W.P.(C). No.33658 of 2016 4 Ext.P1 bid document. Therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent in considering the tender offered by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do not think, petitioner has made out a case warranting interference of this court exercising the power of judicial discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv 25.11.2016