Kerala High Court
Abdul Mubaraq T.M vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2019
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 11826 of 2017
PETITIONER:
ABDUL MUBARAQ T.M
AGED 27 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER, EVERSHINE SHG BI-GAS, CHUNGATHARA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 334.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
SRI.M.V.SURESH (KANNUR)
SRI.R.SREEHARI
SRI.V.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAATHS, CIVIL
STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.
4 THE SECRETARY
MOOTHEEDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679331.
5 THE MOOTHEDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KARAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 679331.
6 THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LIMITED, SPCA
ROAD, P.B. NO. 407, KANNUR DISTRICT -670 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
WP(C).No. 11826 of 2017 2
BY ADVS.
R6 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN
R4 TO R5 BY SRI.M.P.PRABHAKARAN (PALAKKAD)
R1 TO R3 BY SMT.RAJI.T.BHASKAR,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 11826 of 2017 3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or order directing respondents 4 and 5 to recall the order issued to the 6th respondent granting tender against Ext.P4 notification and thereby cancel the work order given to the 6th respondent against Ext.P4 notification.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to verify the matter and direct the 4 th and 5th respondents to cancel and recall the order issued to the 6th respondent granting tender against Ext.P4 notification.
(iii)issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 to direct the 6th respondent to stop the work granted against Ext.P4 notification forthwith.
(iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 to produce the records pertaining to the above said tender before this Hon'ble Court and set aside the order granted to the 6 th respondent and direct respondents 4 and 5 to grant the tender to this petitioner.
(v) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 to grant the tender to the petitioner's agency/service provider for the above said work WP(C).No. 11826 of 2017 4 mentioned in Ext.P4 notification.
(vi) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; Petitioner participated in a tender invited by the Grama Panchayat. The 6th respondent was the lowest bidder. According to the petitioner, petitioner's unit comes under Micro Small Medium Enterprises and the petitioner's unit is allowed to supply for prices less than 20% of the total tendered value and in view of the benefits prescribed by the Stores Purchase Department for such units petitioner is entitled to get the tender over and above the lowest tender submitted by the 6th respondent. Various other contentions are also raised attributing illegality in confirming the contract in favour of the 6th respondent.
3. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying their stand adopted in awarding tender in favour of the 6th respondent, which is a public sector company, and they have chosen to do so in view of the efficacy and confidence reposed on WP(C).No. 11826 of 2017 5 the Panchayat in favour of the 6th respondent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record. l
5. Even though various contentions are raised, learned Government Pleader pointed out that, the work was awarded in favour of the 6th respondent on 29.3.2017, work was completed and bills raised by the 6th respondent amounting to Rs.3,38,884/- are also released.
6. On evaluation of the interim order passed by this court, the order passed was that, issuance of the work order to the 6th respondent shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. In my considered view, thereafter the work was completed by the 6th respondent after receiving work order and the entire work is over and the bills are also released. Taking into account such aspects, it cannot be said that there is anything survives to be considered materially in this writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place WP(C).No. 11826 of 2017 6 during the pendency of this writ petition, which is not under challenge in this writ petition.
Smv Sd/-
19.2.2019
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
WP(C).No. 11826 of 2017 7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/05/2016
BEARING NO. 191/C2/2008/SM
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) 6/2014.SPD/DATED
17/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE STORE PURCHASE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SHOWING THE WORK MANNER OF THE PETITIONER'S AGENCY/SERVICE PROVIDER EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT CALLING FOR TENDER TO DO THE WORKS FOR INSTALLATION OF PIPE COMPOST AND SUPPLY DATED 27/02/2017 EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 15/03/2017 EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, SUCHITHWA MISSION, KANNUR TO THE SECRETARY, KELAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT