Kerala High Court
Sree Vigneswara Packs (Sv Packs) vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 29 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 694
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar, N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,
1941
WP(C).No.20022 OF 2019(C)
PETITIONER:
SREE VIGNESWARA PACKS (SV PACKS)
B4, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM- 691 589,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.B. ANIL,
S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
R1 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).20022/2019 2
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
A short prelude is profitable for a proper disposal of the captioned writ petition. The expression "blacklist" means a list of persons or firms against whom its compiler would warn the public, or some section of the public; a list of persons unworthy of credit, or with whom it is not advisable to make contracts. Thus, it is obvious that blacklisting a person or a firm would undoubtedly send the signal to the public that it is advisable to abstain from trading with the person/firm blacklisted. When that be the impact of blacklisting such an action against any person or a firm should be made only in a situation where it is inescapably inevitable.
2. In the case on hand the petitioner, which is a partnership firm called Sree Vigneswara Packs (SV Packs), responded to a notification dated 17.5.2018 issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board (for short 'TDB') for supply of Composite Cans of the description size, quality, quantity specified therein for the use of Sabarimala Devaswom under the administration of Travancore Devaswom Board during Mandalam, Makaravilakku and Meda Vishu W.P.(C).20022/2019 3 of 1194 ME (2018-'19). The e-tenders submitted by the petitioner and 4 others were opened on 8.6.2018 and thereupon the petitioner and another firm by name M/s.Jyothis Cones, Aluva, who quoted Rs.5.87 per can, were classified as "L1". The total number of Cans to be supplied based on the notification was 180 lakhs. The petitioner and Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil, the proprietor of M/s. Jyothis Cones were invited for negotiation on 18.7.2018 and they were asked to submit the final rate which they could offer, in writing on a foolscap paper. Based on such negotiation TDB took a decision to award the tender for supply of the entire Composite Cans to Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner herein filed W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018. The said Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.29176 of 2018 seeking a direction to the TDB to award work order for supply of Composite Cans to him contending that even after accepting his tender and notifying the same no further action had been taken. Both the said writ petitions were jointly heard and they were disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 14.9.2018. As per Ext.P1, the TDB was directed to call the petitioners therein for open negotiation in the presence of all the three members of the Board and the Secretary/Commissioner of W.P.(C).20022/2019 4 the Board, on a date to be notified to the parties by registered post with acknowledgment due. Pursuant to Ext.P1, an open negotiation was conducted on 3.10.2018 and the petitioner quoted the lowest rate of Rs.4.40 per can. In short, after the open negotiation, he became the successful bidder and consequently, he was classified as 'L1' Virtually, the series of events which ultimately culminated in this dispute commenced after the said stage.
3. The Mandala-Makaravilakku festival for 1194 M.E. started from 15.11.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that even after the open negotiation held on 30.10.2018 the TDB did not take any follow up action in time and notify its finalisation authentically. It is also its case that Ext.P2 work order dated 30.10.2018 issued by the first respondent was received only on 8.11.2018 and that apart in Ext.P2 work order no schedule for supply of Composite Cans was given though it mentioned about the number of Composite Cans to be supplied viz., as 1,80,00,000 (One Crore Eighty Lakhs only). Thereafter, Ext.P3 dated 9.11.2018 was issued requiring the petitioner to supply 50% of the required quantity of cans viz., 90 lakhs cans, on or before 20.11.2018 and to supply the balance before W.P.(C).20022/2019 5 30.11.2018. Finding it impossible to supply such a huge quantity of Composite Cans in short notice the Managing Partner submitted Ext.R1(d) representation expressing his readiness to supply 20 Lakhs cans on or before 20.11.2018 and balance as per the needs. It is its further case that without any further notice the Board cancelled the tender confirmed in its name as per Ext.P4 dated 19.11.2018. As a matter of fact, on perusal, we find that even under Ext.P4, the petitioner was required to supply the cans. In Ext.P4, it is stated thus:-
".....you are hereby intimated that you are bound to supply the entire quantity of can in accordance with the stipulation of quality as per the rescheduled date after producing the performance guarantee and executing the agreement."
True that it is furthermore stated therein that the Board got no other option but to terminate the supply order issued to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact is that TDB then approached this Court with an application registered as DBA.No.20 of 2018, seeking permission to negotiate with L2 bidder viz., Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil for the supply of Composite Cans for Sabarimala for the year 1194 M.E. The said DBA was disposed of as per Ext.P5 order dated 26.11.2018 granting liberty to the TDB to negotiate with other tenderers, who had W.P.(C).20022/2019 6 participated in the bid, so as to verify whether they are willing to effect supply at the rate quoted by the lowest tenderer/second respondent or lower than that or such other appropriate rates acceptable to the Devaswom without prejudice to the right of the Devaswom to proceed against the 2nd respondent therein viz., the petitioner herein in respect of lapse and the loss caused to the Devaswom, if any, in accordance with law.
4. Pursuant to Ext.P5 order, TDB negotiated with 'L2' bidder viz., Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil and awarded the contract to him at the rate of Rs.5.78 per can. According to the petitioner, TDB had purchased only about 50 lakhs of cans from Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil and had actually used only about 15 lakhs cans and kept the balance as surplus. Thereafter, TDB issued notice dated 25.2.2019 intimating its decision to initiate proceedings to blacklist the petitioner firm and its partners. On its receipt, the Managing Partner of the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 5.3.2019 requesting, inter alia, to drop the proceedings and to return the 'earnest money deposit'. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 did not yield any response. Of late, Ext.P7 notice for personal hearing was received W.P.(C).20022/2019 7 on 24.6.2019. Besides explaining the practical and genuine difficulties experienced in the matter, its Managing Partner submitted Ext.P8 written explanation. On 10.7.2019, Ext.P9 order was issued by the first respondent-TDB blacklisting the petitioner firm and all its partners for 5 years from participating in tenders and also forfeiting the earnest money deposited. Soon thereafter, on 15.7.2019, Ext.P10 tender notification was issued by the 1 st respondent for supply of Composite Cans for Sabarimala during the current pilgrimage season viz., for the year 2019-2020. As per the same, it was scheduled as hereunder:-
E-tender starting date - 16.7.2019
Closing date - 3.8.2019
Date for opening E-tender - 5.8.2019
In Condition No.13 of the terms and conditions given thereunder, it is categorically stated that tenders submitted by defaulters in the previous years would not be considered. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner filed this writ petition, mainly, seeking quashment of Ext.P9.
5. On 26.7.2019 this Court admitted this writ petition. On 2.8.2019, this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner W.P.(C).20022/2019 8 provisionally to participate in the tender in pursuance of Ext.P10 subject to the result of the writ petition. On 5.8.2019, this Court made it clear that pendency of this writ petition would not stand in the way of opening the tenders. On opening the tender the petitioner firm and another person were classified as 'L2'. Later, it was found that against 'L1' there was an adverse vigilance report. In short, conduct of negotiation with the petitioner and the other person became necessary in the said circumstances. As per order dated 4.9.2019, this Court ordered that in case the petitioner is classified as 'L1', then contract shall be awarded to the petitioner only on obtaining further orders from this Court.
6. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P9 raising various grounds. According to the petitioner, it was issued in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Arbitrariness, illegality and mala fide are also attributed against the respondents in the matter of issuance of Ext.P9 order. Laxity on the part of the respondents in taking timely follow up actions pursuant to the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 is also attributed. The contention of the petitioner is that Composite W.P.(C).20022/2019 9 Cans are manufactured only on the basis of work orders received as huge amount is to be spent for purchasing or procuring materials. In Ext.P2 work order dated 30.10.2018 what was stated is that Composite Cans should be supplied as per the demand from the Executive Officer. In other words, according to the petitioner, Ext.P2 work order did not specifically demand any particular quantity of cans within a particular time. As mentioned earlier, it is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P2 dated 30.10.2018 was received only on 8.11.2018. Before its receipt, according to the petitioner, Ext.R1(c) letter dated 6.11.2018 was sent to the second respondent raising grievance against the delay in finalisation of the contract even after the negotiation. Subsequently, as per Ext.P3 dated 9.11.2018 the respondents demanded supply of 50% of the total quantity of cans to be supplied under the contract that is, 90 Lakhs Composite Cans by 20.11.2018 at Sabarimala and the balance by 30.11.2018. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents were fully aware that it would be impossible for anyone to supply such a large quantity of Composite Cans within such a short time. The petitioner offered to supply 20 Lakhs Composite Cans before 20.11.2018 and the balance as per the demand. According to the petitioner, the said offer itself W.P.(C).20022/2019 10 would reveal that the firm had never refused to perform its part of the agreement and had never refused to supply Composite Cans or to execute agreement therefor. In short, the contention is that the petitioner had never committed breach of the contract and as such there was absolutely no justification for blacklisting the petitioner firm and all its partners.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the TDB, the first respondent and along with it Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) were produced. The first respondent disavowed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. The counter affidavit would reveal that in regard to certain basic facts there is no dispute between the parties. The fact that pursuant to Ext.P1 common judgment in W.P.(C)Nos.29474 of 2018 and 29176 of 2018 negotiation with the petitioner and one Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil was conducted on 3.10.2018 and it culminated in awarding of contract to the petitioner for supply of Composite Cans for the pilgrimage season 2018-2019, are not disputed therein. So also there is no dispute regarding the number of Composite Cans which were to be supplied by the petitioner, in terms of Ext.P2. Regarding the delay in the matter of finalising the tender and W.P.(C).20022/2019 11 intimating the same to the petitioner the first respondent contended that there was discrepancy in the address given by the petitioner inasmuch as the address of the firm furnished in the tender as also in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018 differed and it caused the delay. According to the first respondent, in the said circumstances, the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit and also necessary proof that the firm which responded to the notification and the firm which filed W.P. (C)No.29474 of 2018 are one and the same. In the counter affidavit certain other contentions are also raised. The address of the petitioner shown in the writ petition is not in conformity with the address given in the tender form and it is similar to the address of another tenderer M/s.Triveni Packs. The petitioner filed affidavit, viz., Ext.R1(a) as required, only on 26.10.2018. Soon after the receipt of Ext.R1(a) affidavit the Board issued Ext.P2 supply order dated 30.10.2018 to the petitioner and it was also communicated to it by E- mail on 1.11.2018 itself, apart from sending it by post. Ext.R1(b) is produced as the true copy of the E-mail sent to the petitioner. While awaiting supply of Composite Cans the Board received Ext.R1(c) representation dated 6.11.2018 from the petitioner. Immediately on receipt of Ext.R1(c), Ext.P3 was issued to the petitioner. It is also the W.P.(C).20022/2019 12 case of the first respondent that on receipt of Ext.P3 the petitioner submitted Ext.R1(d) which, in effect, would amount to withdrawal from the offer made by him to the Board. The statement in Ext.R1(d) that the petitioner would supply only twenty lakhs Composite Cans on or before 20.11.2018 is actually against the terms of contract and therefore, it was not acceptable to the Board. Insufficiency in the number of cans would have adversely affected the smooth conduct of the festival and it was in the said circumstances that the Board was constrained to move this Court by filing DBA.No.20/2018, for getting permission to negotiate with other bidders for the supply of Composite Cans. According to the respondents, as per Ext.P5 order this Court not only permitted the Board to conduct negotiation with other bidders who had originally participated in the tender proceedings for the pilgrimage season 2018-'19 but also reserved the right of the Devaswom to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the lapse and loss, if any, caused to the Devaswom, in accordance with law. In short, according to the first respondent-TDB, the proceedings that culminated in Ext.P9 was initiated availing the liberty granted by this Court as per Ext.P5, after issuing Ext.R1(e) notice. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents W.P.(C).20022/2019 13 submitted that the scope of a judicial review against proceedings like Ext.P9 by this Court is very limited and in fact, it is permissible only on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. To buttress the said contention the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited v. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and Others (2016) 8 SCC 446. Based on the said decision it is further submitted that since the petitioner got no case that he had not been heard prior to the passing of Ext.P9 order it cannot be interfered with.
8. The core contention of the respondents to counter the challenge of the petitioner against the blacklisting is that the proceedings that culminated in the blacklisting of the petitioner firm and its partners had been initiated based on the right reserved to the first respondent herein viz., the petitioner in DBA.No.20 of 2018, to proceed against the lapse and the loss caused to the Devaswom, in accordance with law. However, the petitioner would contend that a close scrutiny of Ext.P5 would reveal the circumstances that necessitated Ext.P5 order and it undoubtedly, reveal the fact that this W.P.(C).20022/2019 14 Court had not entered into any conclusion against the petitioner as per Ext.P5. In the wake of the rival contentions it is necessary to extract the relevant portions of the order in DBA.No.20 of 2018 viz., Ext.P5 and they read thus:-
".....Since timely supply of lids is of utmost importance for the Devaswom to see that regular and prompt supply of Aravana Prasadam is effected to the pilgrims and further since there is no time to go for a re-tender, permission of the Court is sought for to negotiate with the next bidder in the queue. The factual position as to the sequence of events is conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent as well"
8. After hearing, this DBA stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner Devaswom Board to negotiate with other tenderers, who had participated in the bid, so as to verify whether they are willing to effect supply at the rate quoted by the lowest tenderer/second respondent or lower than that or such other appropriate rates acceptable to the Devaswom.
It is ordered accordingly; without prejudice to the right of the Devaswom to proceed against the 2nd respondent in respect of lapse and the loss caused to the Devaswom, if any, in accordance with law."
On perusal of the above-extracted portions in Ext.P5, we find that the words 'if any' used in the last sentence therein got much relevance. In the light of the same, it can only be said that though right was W.P.(C).20022/2019 15 given to the first respondent herein to proceed against the petitioner herein, in respect of the lapse and the loss caused to the Devaswom, if any, in accordance with law this Court did not, actually, enter into any finding to the effect that the petitioner had committed breach of contract or lapse and caused loss to TDB. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend based on what is specifically recorded by this Court in Ext.P5 the petitioner cannot raise any objection against the actions that culminated in Ext.P9. This contention is mainly founded on the following sentence in paragraph 7 of Ext.P5 order:-
"The factual position as to the sequence of events is conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent as well."
We are afraid, the said contention cannot be upheld. If this Court, by adding such a sentence in Ext.P5, meant that the petitioner herein had committed any lapse that caused loss to the Devaswom, this Court would not have used the words 'if any' in Ext.P5 order. In this context, it is to be noted that a careful scanning of Ext.P5 order would reveal that no pointed question was formulated and decided in DBA.No.20 of 2018 as to whether the petitioner had committed breach of contract or any lapse warranting an action, as has been W.P.(C).20022/2019 16 done, vide Ext.P9. This Court, obviously, took note of the fact that notice of termination of contract was issued to the petitioner herein and timely supply of lids (sic., cans) is of utmost importance for the Devaswom to see that regular and prompt supply of Aravana Prasadam is effected to the pilgrims and further that there was no time to go for a re-tender. It is in the said circumstances that the said DBA seeking permission to negotiate with 'L2' bidder for the supply of Composite Cans to Sabarimala was ordered on the aforesaid lines, as per Ext.P5. Taking into account all such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner can call in question Ext.P9, on all grounds legally and factually available despite the existence of Ext.P5 order. In that view of the matter we are proceeding to consider the rest of the rival contentions, based on the materials on record, on merits.
9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Jayakumar appearing for the respondents.
10. Evidently, based on Ext.P1 judgment negotiation was W.P.(C).20022/2019 17 held with the petitioner and Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil, in the matter of supply of Composite Cans and admittedly, the petitioner offered the lowest rate, in the negotiation held on 3.10.2018. In fact, in Ext.P2 dated 30.10.2018 the second respondent stated thus:-
"Pursuant to the Devaswom Board Order read as third paper above, I am to inform you that The Travancore Devaswom Board have decided to award your Firm the contract for the supply of Composite Cans as disclosed below:-"
(underline supplied) Under the caption 'Terms and conditions of purchase' it is stated thereunder, as condition No.7, thus:-
"A separate Agreement shall be executed with the Executive Officer, Sabarimala within five days of the date of receipt of this order."
11. Thus, it is evident that as per Ext.P2 dated 30.10.2018 the petitioner was informed of the decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board to award the Firm the contract for the supply of Composite Cans and the petitioner firm was also informed of the requirement to execute a separate agreement with the Executive Officer, Sabarimala within five days of the receipt of Ext.P2. However, nothing is on record revealing as to whether an agreement W.P.(C).20022/2019 18 was actually executed within the stipulated period. In that context, it is relevant to refer to Ext.P4 letter dated 19.11.2018 from the Devaswom Commissioner to the petitioner firm. In Ext.P4 it is stated thus:-
"It is informed that there is willful laches and negligence on your part, in the of non-production of performance guarantee and the non-execution of the agreement with the Board. Under these circumstances, the Board has no other option but to terminate the supply order issued to you and to proceed with in accordance with law at your risk and cost."
12. There is no case for the respondents that after the negotiation conducted on 3.10.2018 its outcome, in the sense, decision to award the contract to the petitioner firm was intimated earlier than Ext.P2 dated 30.10.2018. Obviously, as per Ext.P2 besides intimating the petitioner regarding the decision to award the firm the contract for the supply of Composite Cans and to execute a separate agreement, in that regard, it was also asked thereunder to supply 1,80,00,000 Composite Cans as per the demand of the Executive Officer at the rate of Rs.4.40 per can. A perusal of Ext.P2 work order dated 30.10.2018 would reveal that as regards the quantity to be supplied the aforesaid figure was specifically mentioned therein. However, as regards the date of delivery it was W.P.(C).20022/2019 19 only stated therein, thus:-
"Date of delivery shall be as per the demand of the Executive Officer, Sabarimala."
13. In the said circumstances, it can only be taken that in spite of the non-execution of an agreement the petitioner was given work order as per Ext.P2 to supply 1,80,00,000 Composite Cans to TDB and no time schedule as regards supply was specifically mentioned therein. It was only stated therein that date of delivery shall be as per the demand of the Executive Officer, Sabarimala. It is the case of the petitioner that after finding that he is the successful bidder to be classified as 'L1' pursuant to the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 the factum of finalisation of the tender was not appropriately and authentically intimated within a reasonable time and he was intimated about it only as per Ext.P2 dated 30.11.2018. This fact is indisputable, going by the common case. When the petitioner attributed delay on the part of the respondents in intimating it, of the aforesaid matter, in an authenticate manner the respondents would contend that the delay had occasioned solely due to the petitioner. In that regard, the respondents would contend that the petitioner had given address differently in the tender and in W.P. W.P.(C).20022/2019 20 (C)No.29474 of 2018. It is owing to the incongruity occurred in its address that the petitioner was asked to file an affidavit and also to produce necessary materials in proof of the fact that the firms mentioned in the tender and the said writ petition are one and the same, the respondents contended. According to them, immediately on receiving the affidavit further steps were taken.
14. While considering the tenability of the aforesaid contentions, in the matter of delay in issuance of letter intimating award of contract in favour of the petitioner firm, certain relevant aspects have to be taken note of. The petitioner had been one of the successful bidders for the supply of Composite Cans to TDB since the year 2011. For the year 2017-2018 the petitioner was awarded the contract for the supply of 58,33,333 Composite Cans to the respondents in connection with the festival in Sabarimala temple. In 2018-2019 also, viz., the period in question, the petitioner participated in the tender process for the supply of Composite Cans and it was the subsequent developments that constrained it to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018. Now, the case of the respondents is that the address of the petitioner given in the W.P.(C).20022/2019 21 tender and in the writ petition are different. What is noticeable in this regard is that there is nothing on record which would reveal that as relates the identity of the petitioner, based on the aforesaid alleged incongruity, any objection was raised by the respondents in the proceedings in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018. Evidently, the petitioner had filed the said writ petition subsequent to the submission of the tender for the year 2018-2019. The fact is that in the said writ proceedings till the pronouncement of Ext.P1 judgment the respondents did not raise any such doubt regarding the identity of the petitioner and a scanning of Ext.P1 judgment would reveal that the respondents had contested the said proceedings realising and recognizing the petitioner firm as the firm which had responded to the tender notification for the supply of Composite Cans for the year 2018-2019 and consequently got classified along with Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil as 'L1'. It is also an indisputable fact that subsequent to Ext.P1 judgment and in compliance with the directions issued thereunder the petitioner was called for negotiation along with Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil on 3.10.2018. It is common case that the petitioner had participated in the negotiation and offered the lowest rate of Rs.4.40 per composite can. In the said given circumstances, how can W.P.(C).20022/2019 22 much credence be given to such a contention raised by the respondents. It is also the contention of the respondents that the address of the petitioner firm given in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018 looked similar to the address of another tenderer viz., M/s.Triveni Packs. True that the respondent-TDB produced the true copy of the affidavit dated 26.10.2018 filed by the petitioner on being asked to give an affidavit, as Ext.R1(a). However, we ween in the context of the contentions that the affidavit filed by the first respondent in DBA.No.20 of 2018, which was referred to in Ext.P5, would assume relevance. In Ext.P5, the address of the firm given in the tender submitted by the petitioner is shown as follows:-
"M/s. S.V.Packs, Muthodam Building, Beach Road, Kollam."
Obviously, another bidder gave its address in the tender as follows, going by Ext.P5:-
"Triveni Packs, Number
T.P.15/552, Sidco Industrial
Estate, Umayanalloor, Kollam."
These facts are discernible from paragraph 4 of the order in DBA.No.20 of 2018 viz., Ext.P5. Going by Ext.P5 order the particulars of the participants, as above, have been given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of DBA No.20 of 2018. In W.P.(C).20022/2019 23 W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018 the petitioner gave its address as hereunder:-
"SREE VIGNESWARA PACKS (S V PACKS) B4, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN-
691 589, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.B.ANIL, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 57 YEARS."
Upon looking into the address of M/s.Triveni Packs and address of the petitioner firm given in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018, mentioned as above, we do not find any merit in the contention of the first respondent that the said addresses looked similar. The fact that it would indicate both the firms situate in Sidco Industrial Estate cannot be a reason to call for such an affidavit, especially in view of the facts mentioned hereinbefore, including the undisputed fact that since 2011 the petitioner firm had been supplying Composite Cans to TDB. In the context of the aforesaid contention of incongruity in the address furnished by the petitioner firm in the tender as also in W.P. (C)No.29474 of 2018 it is also relevant to refer to the relevant recitals from paragraphs 6 and 10 of Ext.P1 judgment in W.P. (C)No.29474 of 2018, which read thus:-
"6. Admittedly, the writ petitioners in both the above Writ Petitions had quoted the same rate, namely Rs.5.87 per can and this compelled the Board W.P.(C).20022/2019 24 to go in for a process of "negotiation" with these two tenderers, who were classified as "L1". Going by the counter affidavit filed by the Board in W.P. (C)No.29176 of 2018, they had called both the writ petitioners for "negotiation" on 18.07.2018 and they say that on that day both of them were present before the Board and that after "negotiations" they were directed to give their lowest rate. The Board says that M/s.Jothis Cones thereafter quoted Rs.5.75 per composite can and that M/s.SV Packs gave quote for Rs.5.83 per can.............."
"10. Sri.S.Rajmohan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board, submits in tune with the counter affidavit filed on its and asserts that the Board has followed a proper procedure, since both these writ petitioners were found to have quoted the same figure pursuant to the tender notification and it is, therefore, that they were called for negotiation by the Board. The learned standing counsel submits that all the three members of the Board and its Assistant Secretary were present on 18.07.2018 and that the negotiation was done with both the parties in a transparent manner......"
15. It is thus, obvious from the afore-extracted recitals from paragraphs 6 and 10 of Ext.P1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018 that though the petitioner firm gave its address as mentioned hereinbefore in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018 the respondents herein who were respectively respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018, did not dispute or cast any doubt, regarding the identity of the petitioner firm and evidently, contested the proceedings in W.P. W.P.(C).20022/2019 25 (C)No.29474 of 2018 clearly realising and recognizing the petitioner therein as the firm which responded to the tender notification dated 17.5.2018 and consequently called for negotiation on 18.7.2018. These indisputable facts are evident from the afore-extracted portions from Ext.P1 judgment. It is also an indisputable fact and in fact, admitted fact, as can be seen from paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in this writ petition, that pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment viz., judgment in W.P.(C)No.29474 of 2018, the petitioner herein was called for negotiation by the respondents, on 3.10.2018. For the foregoing reasons, we are at a loss to understand the reason or justification for doubting the identity of the petitioner firm as the very firm which submitted tender pursuant to the notification dated 17.5.2018. In such circumstances, the case of the respondents that the incongruity in the address that caused delay in intimating the petitioner regarding the finalisation of the negotiation cannot be said to be a bona fide one and it can only be a claptrap or a cavil. If there was bona fide doubt regarding the identity, due to the aforementioned reason, why negotiation was made with the petitioner firm pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment on 3.10.2018 before clearing the doubt. Ext.P1 judgment would also W.P.(C).20022/2019 26 reveal that this Court directed thereunder that the date of negotiation should be notified to the parties by registered post with acknowledgement due. In such circumstances, when the Managing Partner of the firm turned up for negotiation on 3.10.2018 itself would and should indicate that he participated in the negotiation on receipt of such an intimation, as directed by this Court. The respondents did not have a case that the said directions of this Court were not complied with. In short, we are of the considered view that the explanation for the delay from 3.10.2018 till 30.10.2018 assigned by the first respondent, in the matter of giving authentic information to the petitioner regarding the finalisation of the bid in its favour, cannot be appreciated and accepted.
16. At the same time, the petitioner's version that it came to know about the finalisation of the contract after the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 only on 8.11.2018 cannot be believed for the simple reason that on 6.11.2018 the Managing Director of the petitioner firm Sri. M.B.Anil submitted Ext.R1(c) representation before the Board. At the first blush, its perusal would give an impression that the appellant/the petitioner was unaware of the W.P.(C).20022/2019 27 outcome of the negotiation held on 3.10.2018. Despite this view, we may hasten to add that no prudent man would incur huge expenses for manufacturing such a huge quantity of Composite Cans without obtaining authentic letter of information regarding the finalisation of the tender concerned in his favour. Paragraph 4 in Ext.R1(c) would reveal that his grievance was that after the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 no authenticated letter of information confirming the contract was received from the respondents. In the final paragraph in Ext.R1(c), petitioner had stated thus:-
"Therefore, I request this authority to look into the matter and consider my submissions and be pleased to take steps to take a legal and justifiable decision in this matter and be pleased to exonerate me from supplying the total quantity mentioned in the tender notification and further be pleased to reduce the Bank guarantee also to that extent."
Obviously, what the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm had requested thereunder was to exonerate him, virtually the firm, from supplying the total quantity mentioned in the tender notification and further be pleased to reduce the Bank guarantee also to that extent. It is to be noted that as per the same, he had sought only for exoneration from supplying the total quantity mentioned in the tender notification and also for reduction regarding the amount of Bank W.P.(C).20022/2019 28 Guarantee and not for total exoneration from the liability to supply Composite Cans. It is subsequent to the receipt of Ext.P3 letter dated 9.11.2018 from the second respondent/the Devaswom Commissioner that the petitioner/appellant sent Ext.R3(d) representation/communication to the first respondent Board. In Ext.P3, the petitioner was also informed thus:-
"Any how you are informed that if you desire to have any change in the supply schedule for fulfilling your legal obligation, you may effect 50% of the supply before 20.11.2018 and the balance before 30.11.2018"
(underline supplied) It is thus stated in Ext.P3 that if the petitioner got desire to have change in the supply schedule for fulfilling his legal obligation he could effect supply as scheduled thereunder. The fact is that after the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 a schedule for supply was given to the petitioner only as per Ext.P3 dated 9.11.2018. After the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 though the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 dated 30.10.2018 intimating the award of contract and about the quantity of Composite Cans to be supplied as one crore eighty thousand no schedule of supply was given thereunder. Regarding the supply what was stated therein was that date of delivery should be as W.P.(C).20022/2019 29 per the demand of the Executive Officer, Sabarimala. Thus, it is obvious that after the negotiation on 3.10.2018 the first authenticated letter to the petitioner from the respondents regarding the award of contract in its favour was Ext.P2 dated 30.10.2018 and indisputably, it did not contain any schedule for supply of Composite Cans. We have already declined to accept the reason for the delay in communicating the factum of finalisation of the tender to the petitioner assigned by the first respondent. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 was received only on 8.11.2018. At any rate, the fact is that the petitioner could have obtained Ext.P2 only after 30.10.2018. Going by the supply schedule mentioned therein, before 20.11.2018 the petitioner firm was to supply 90,00,000 (Ninety lakhs) Composite Cans and the balance of 90,00,000 (Ninety lakhs) Composite Cans before 30.11.2018. On its receipt, the petitioner submitted Ext.R1(d) communication revealing readiness to supply 20 lakhs Composite Cans on or before 20.11.2018 and the balance as per the needs. The respondents declined to accept the said offer and thereupon, moved this Court as per DBA.No.20 of 2018 and it culminated in Ext.P5 judgment. Subsequent to Ext.P5, holding that the petitioner who obtained the right to supply Composite Cans for W.P.(C).20022/2019 30 the year 2017-'18 failed to offer Bank Guarantee, execute agreement and thereby caused huge loss to the Devaswom Board vide Ext.P9 the petitioner firm and all its partners are blacklisted and restrained from participating in all tenders of TDB for a period of five years besides forfeiting the earnest money deposit.
17. As stated earlier, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that such a decision to blacklist a defaultee tenderer is not available for judicial review. It is to support the said contention that he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited case (supra). On a careful perusal of the said judgment we are of the considered view that the Apex Court did not lay down the position that judicial review is absolutely impermissible in tender or contractual matters at any circumstance. In that regard, it is only appropriate to refer to paragraph 19 of the said decision. It reads thus:-
"19. It is also well to remember the admonition given by this Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216 in cases like the present, as under:(SCC p.228, para 21) W.P.(C).20022/2019 31 "21 In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, [(2007) 14 SCC 517], the following conclusion is relevant: (SCC p.531, para 22) "22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check whether choice or decision is 'sound'. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions.
Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. 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. 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. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. 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 exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, 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.
Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour W.P.(C).20022/2019 32 someone;
OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached';
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/ contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
18. The sum and substance of the decision in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited case (supra) is that before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of the power of judicial review Courts should pause themselves to certain questions viz.,
(i) whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached";
W.P.(C).20022/2019 33
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers for those questions are in the affirmative certainly, there could be interference even in such matters in exercise of the power of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This position cannot be disputed in the light of the said decision relied on by the respondents. True that the Apex Court further held therein that cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor stand on a different footing and there required a higher degree of fairness in action. This, according to us, assumes great relevance, in the case on hand.
19. In the light of the aforesaid position of law obtained from the very decision relied on by the respondents viz., in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited case (supra) we are of the view that we will have to proceed further with the consideration. We are of the considered view that application of the maxim "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia" which means `the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform' may also to be looked into in the case on hand. In the matter of application of W.P.(C).20022/2019 34 this maxim the Apex Court in Mohammed Gazi v. State of M.P. And others (AIR 2000 SC 1806) held, of course, in a different contextual and factual situation wherein the question of application of the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" also arose for consideration, thus:-
"The other maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia - the law does not compel a man to do which he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases."
In that regard it is to be noted that it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents ought to have appreciated that it is humanly impossible to procure raw materials and manufacture and supply such large quantity of cans within such short span of time, as mentioned under Ext.P3 and that the petitioner is being blacklisted and penalised for the delay of the respondents in issuing work order in time. In the wake of such contentions it is also relevant to refer to the actual conditions of supply enjoined under tender notification dated 17.5.2018, which has been incorporated in Ext.R1(c) letter of the petitioner addressed to the 2nd respondent. Going by the same, W.P.(C).20022/2019 35 the tenderer should have been prepared to supply 50% of the quantity before 1.10.2018 and the remaining quantity before 30.11.2018. The total quantity of Composite Cans required was given thereunder as 1,80,00,000. It is to be noted that Ext.R1(c) has been produced by the first respondent along with its counter affidavit. However, with respect to the total quantity of Composite Cans required as also regarding the time schedule for the supply going by the notification dated 17.5.2018, no dispute whatsoever was raised by the respondents therein. In other words, it is not stated anywhere in the counter affidavit that such a time schedule was not originally fixed as per notification dated 17.5.2018. Thus, it could be seen that going by the schedule of supply given under the notification dated 17.5.2018 after the completion of the tender process the successful tenderer would have obtained time till 1.10.2018 and about two months thereafter for the purpose of supplying the balance quantity viz., up to 30.11.2018, under the normal circumstances. At this juncture, it is also apropos to note that in W.P.(C)No.29176 of 2018 filed by M/s.Jyothis Cones, who participated in the negotiation along with the petitioner on 18.7.2018, its grievance was that despite the acceptance of it as the tenderer who quoted the lowest rate, work W.P.(C).20022/2019 36 order was not given to. It is the delay in that matter that constrained the said entity to file W.P.(C)No.29176 of 2018 which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment. This is discernible from Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P5 order. As noticed earlier, as per Ext.P3 the petitioner was informed that if he got desire to have any change in the supply schedule for fulfilling his legal obligation he should effect 50% of the supply before 20.11.2018 and the balance before 30.11.2018. We have already extracted the relevant recital in that regard contained in Ext.P3 hereinbefore. The said recital is relevant for twin purposes. The words "any change in the supply schedule" would indicate the existence of an original schedule for the supply of Composite Cans and according to us, it can only be the schedule for supply given in the notification dated 17.5.2018, referred to hereinbefore. Going by the originally fixed schedule, it is evident that realising the reasonable time required to manufacture Composite Cans after purchasing the required materials sufficient time was provided therefor, in the notification dated 17.5.2018. As noticed hereinbefore, in that regard, for supplying 50% of the total quantity time up to 1.10.2018 was available and from that date two more months were available for supplying the balance quantity. At the W.P.(C).20022/2019 37 same time, going by the changed supply schedule given under Ext.P3 dated 9.11.2018 within a span of 11 days viz., on or before 20.11.2018, the petitioner was to supply 90,00,000 of Composite Cans and within another 10 days therefrom the balance quantity of 90 lakhs Composite Cans was also to be supplied, viz., on or before 30.11.2018.
20. In that regard, it is also relevant to note that after carefully scanning the materials on record we have already arrived at the conclusion that the respondents were not justified in causing delay in the matter of intimating the petitioner authentically the finalisation of the tender in its favour, pursuant to the negotiation held on 3.10.2018. Indisputably, the first authenticated letter of information in that regard was issued by the respondents to the petitioner only on 30.10.2018. True that, the petitioner got a contention that the same was received only on 8.11.2018. We have already found, in fact, it is discernible from Ext.P2 itself, that Ext.P2 though specifically mentioned the total quantity of Composite Cans required as 1,80,00,000 it did not mention the time schedule therein. Regarding the time schedule what is stated in Ext.P2 was that the W.P.(C).20022/2019 38 date of delivery should be as per the demand of the Executive Officer, Sabarimala. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the position that thereafter a supply schedule was intimated to the petitioner, for the first time, only as per Ext.P3. Even if it is taken that Ext.P3 letter was received by the petitioner on the next day viz., on 10.11.2018 only 11 days was available to the petitioner for supplying a very huge quantity of Composite Cans viz., 90 lakhs and for supplying the balance quantity as well only 10 days' time was granted. To honour the said supply schedule the petitioner was to manufacture nearly 9,00,000 Composite Cans per day. We have already held that no prudent man will incur expense for purchasing and manufacturing such huge quantities of Composite Cans before receiving authenticated letter of information regarding the award of contract in his favour. If that time schedule in the light of originally fixed schedule under the notification dated 17.5.2018 is taken into account with reference to the huge quantity of Composite Cans to be supplied within the aforesaid time schedule it can only be held that the respondents were virtually requiring the petitioner to do an impossibility. We have already seen that going by the fixed schedule under the notification dated 17.5.2018 after the supply of 90 Lakhs W.P.(C).20022/2019 39 Composite Cans on or before 1.10.2018 the balance 90 Lakhs was to be supplied on or before 30.11.2018. To honour the conditions thereunder awardee of the contract was to manufacture and supply 1,50,000 Composite Cans per day. In fact, under the normal circumstances, more than two months' time would have been available for the supply of the first supply of 90 Lakhs Composite Cans. However, as noticed hereinbefore, under the changed supply schedule the contractor was required to manufacture and supply about 9,00,000 (9 Lakhs) Composite Cans per day. It is in that context that the prejudice caused to the petitioner owing to the failure on the part of the respondents to authentically intimate the outcome of the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 would assume relevance. It is not in dispute that in the negotiation held on that day the petitioner tendered the lowest rate per can. There is no dispute on the fact that after the negotiation held on 3.10.2018 the fact of finalisation of the tender in his favour was intimated to the petitioner only as per Ext.P2 dated 30.10.2018. We have already noted that the petitioner got a case that Ext.P2 was received only on 8.11.2018. Whatever that be, the fact is that there occurred a long delay in the matter of intimating the fact of award of the contract in favour of the W.P.(C).20022/2019 40 petitioner. We say so taking into account the fact that the last day fixed for completion of the supply of entire quantity of Composite Cans was 30.11.2018. When that was the outer limit, a delay of more than 25 days in intimating the finalisation of the contract to the person concerned, who was to honour the terms of the contract before 30.11.2018, can only be said to be an inordinate delay. We have already found the reason assigned by the respondents for the said delay as unacceptable. Taking into account all the said aspects, in the factual position obtained in this case, we are of the view that the changed supply schedule under Ext.P3 was nothing but asking the petitioner to perform an impossibility. It is in the said circumstances that we formed the opinion that the maxim 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' assumes relevance in the case on hand. Law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. Taking into account the entire circumstances including the delay in intimating the factum of award of contract to the petitioner we have no hesitation to hold that what was asked for under Ext.P3, was nothing but compelling the petitioner to do what it cannot possibly perform. We observed earlier that no prudent man will procure or purchase in advance materials for the manufacture and manufacture, Composite W.P.(C).20022/2019 41 Cans in such huge quantities without getting authenticated information regarding award of contract in his favour. In the circumstances, we also posed a question to ourselves as to whether the demand under Ext.P3 was irrational in the sense, asking for an impossibility and whether, in the attendant circumstances, the decision in Ext.P9 is arbitrary and irrational. Again, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision is certainly is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law, could not have and would not have reached. After the decision to terminate the contract of the petitioner who offered supply of Cans at the rate of Rs.4.40 per Can the respondents awarded the contract to Sri. Joy Peter Tharayil, at the rate of 5.78 per Can. In that regard, it is also relevant to note that the contention of the petitioner that actually only about 50 lakhs Cans from Sri.Joy Peter Tharayil and had actually used only about 15 lakhs Cans and kept the balance as surplus, stood uncontroverted by the respondents. We have already noted that in the very decision relied on by the respondents viz., in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited case (supra) the Apex Court held that cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor stand on a W.P.(C).20022/2019 42 different footing and there required a higher degree of fairness in action. The fact is that on a flimsy ground the respondents delayed intimation regarding the finalisation of the contract in favour of the petitioner and thereafter all on a sudden required the petitioner to perform an impossibility. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the petitioner had offered to supply 20 Lakhs of Composite Cans on or before 20.11.2018 and the balance as per the needs. This was not accepted by the respondents. In the writ petition the petitioner had categorically stated in paragraph 9 that pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment the first respondent awarded the contract to 'L2' i.e., Joy Peter Tharayil at the rate of Rs.5.78 per can and further that from him the first respondent purchased about 50 Lakhs cans and used only about 15 Lakhs cans keeping the balance as surplus. This contention is also not controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. What was reasonable and pragmatic in the circumstances obtained? All these aspects were taken into consideration only to hold that action in blacklisting of the petitioner firm as also its partners on the grounds including failure to supply the cans in terms of the changed supply schedule, and then restraining them from participating in any tender of TDB and forfeiting the W.P.(C).20022/2019 43 earnest money deposited is much short of the expected higher degree of fairness in action. The upshot of the discussion is that Ext.P9 invites interference. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the entitlement of the petitioner for award of contract for supply of Composite Cans for the pilgrimage season 2019-'20, the tender in respect of which the petitioner participated, on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court, shall be decided by the respondents, expeditiously taking note of the urgency.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE W.P.(C).20022/2019 44 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2018 IN WC NO. 29474 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER DATED
30.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.11.2018
ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.11.2018
ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM
BOARD.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.11.2018 IN
D.B.A. NO. 20 OF 2018 OF THIS HONBLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
5.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 21.6.2019 FOR PERSONAL
HEARING.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN EXPLANATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON
26.6.2019
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ROC 9845/18/SAB
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON
10.7.2019
W.P.(C).20022/2019 45
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 15.7.2019 INVITING TENDER
FOR SUPPLY OF COMPOSITE CANS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2018.
EXHIBIT R1 B A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 C A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
06.11.2018.
EXHIBIT R1 D A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1 E A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 25.02.2019.
TKS/spc