Kerala High Court
M/S.Malabar Plus Constructions Pvt. ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 30 October, 2020
Author: N. Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020/8TH KARTHIKA,1942
WP(C).No.13877 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER:
M/S.MALABAR PLUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
BUILDING NO.MM 21/28A, KUTTIPARA, PAYYANAD,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 122,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR HANEEZ,
S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, RESIDING AT VADAKKANGARA
PALLIKKARA HOUSE, KUTTIPARA, PAYYANAD,
MANJERI,ELANKUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 122.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOMY GEORGE
SRI.R.PADMARAJ
SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN
SMT. CHITRA N. DAS
SHRI.RISHAB S.
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
PWD ROADS, NORTH CIRLCE,
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
4 SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
WPC No.13877/2020
:2:
5 M/S.MALABAR ASSOCIATES,CITY GATE,
BY PASS JUNCTION, KACHERIPPADI,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM -676 121.
ADDL.6 CHIEF ENGINEER,PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY
DIVISION OFFICE, PUSHPA NAGAR ROAD,
PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
ADDL.7 CHIEF ENGINEER BUILDINGS,
PWD ROADS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 AND ADDL.R7 AS PER
ORDER DATED 15-09-2020 IN IA 4/2020.
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT DEEPA NARAYANAN
R3 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
R5 BY ADV. SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 30-10-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.13877/2020
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.13877 of 2020
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2020
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner, a Private Limited Company holding A Class Contactor's licence, is before this Court seeking to set aside Exts.P4(a) and P10 and to direct respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the allotment of Ext.P1 work to the 5 th respondent including all subsequent steps, if any, taken in favour of the 5th respondent. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential and incidental reliefs.
2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent- Superintending Engineer issued Ext.P1 Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the work of providing "Budget work 2011- 2012 Urgent Widening of Moodal Kanchippura Bypass road for Vattappara accident prone zone on NH 17 in Kottakkal WPC No.13877/2020 :4: LAC in Malappuram District (Balance work)". The NIT required that the bidder shall have successfully completed at least one similar work costing more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work described in the NIT during the last five years. The estimated cost of the work is ₹11,34,04,792/-.
3. The petitioner states that six Contractors including the petitioner bid for the work. To the surprise of the petitioner, the bid of the petitioner was rejected by the 3 rd respondent-Chief Engineer along with two other bids stating that they are disqualified due to insufficient marks obtained for work experience, bank guarantee and average annual turnover. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has the requisite work experience. The petitioner had submitted documents showing its robust financial capacity. The petitioner had also produced certified audited copies of its Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account to demonstrate its annual financial turnover during the last five years. Therefore, the reasons stated by the respondents for WPC No.13877/2020 :5: rejecting the petitioner's pre-qualification bid is unsustainable.
4. The petitioner further states that M/s. Malabar Associates who are found to be the eligible lowest bidder, offered ₹10,88,23,863.44, whereas the bid of the petitioner was for a sum of ₹9,95,57,956.57 only. Therefore, had the petitioner was not disqualified at the pre-qualification stage, the amount offered by the petitioner would have been the lowest and the work would have been awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the attempt on the part of respondents 1 to 4 to award Ext.P1 work to the 5 th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and it amounts to malafide exercise of power.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner found that its tender has been rejected on the basis of Ext.P10 Government norms which is 35 years old and therefore the petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged Ext.P10 also.
6. Respondents 1 to 4 resisted the writ petition filing WPC No.13877/2020 :6: statements. In the statement, respondents 1 to 4 stated that the Chief Engineer's Committee evaluated the pre-qualification bids of all the bidders and awarded marks. The marks awarded to the petitioner were as follows:-
"A. Structure a. For having valid license:- 35 marks out of 35 marks. b. For financial strength:- Bank certificate produced for Rs.5 crore - 22 marks out of 40 marks.
(40 marks will be awarded if bank certificate showing a credit facility amount equal to or greater than the EPAC of the tendered work of Rs.11.34 crores was produced otherwise proportionate marks will be awarded) Total for Structure:- 57 marks out of 75 marks.
B. Financial status a. As per Average Annual Turnover (hereinafter referred to as AATO):- 67 marks out of 75 marks.
(75 marks will be awarded if AATO is greater than EPAC of Rs.11.34 crores, otherwise proportionate mark - here AATO of bidder is 10.11 crores, hence 10.11x75/11.34 = 67 marks) b. For work in hand:- 0 marks out of 50 marks. The petitioner has not submitted the work in hand details. Total for Financial status:- 67 marks out of 125 marks.
C. Resources a. For project management:- 35 out of 35 marks b. For work force:- 15 marks out of 15 marks c. For plant & equipments:- 75 marks out of 75 marks Total for Resources:- 125 marks out of 125 marks D. Experience - 58 marks out of 175 marks - (For Rs.5.01 crores experience certificate with 5% weightage WPC No.13877/2020 :7: for 1 year - 5.01x1.05x125/11.34 = 58 marks.) 175 marks will be given if the bidder produce experience certificate of 2 works carried out within last five years costing an amount equal to or above EPAC. 125 marks will be given if he produce experience certificate of 1 work carried out within last five years costing an amount equal to or above EPAC, and if less, proportional marks will be given. Year wise weightage of 5% is also considered.
Total of A+B+C+D=307 marks out of 500 marks. For qualifying, the minimum mark required is 325 (65% of
500)."
As the minimum mark required to qualify was fixed as 325 and since the petitioner could get only 307 marks, the petitioner was disqualified by the Chief Engineer's Committee. The pre-qualification procedure was done as per the conditions in the NIT and the prescribed pre-qualification criteria. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and is therefore liable to be dismissed, contended respondents 1 to
4.
7. The 5th respondent, who was selected for award of the work, also contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit. According to the 5 th respondent, the petitioner-Company was incorporated only WPC No.13877/2020 :8: on 02.04.2020 and obtained A Class Contractor registration only on 03.06.2020. The petitioner-Company has not undertaken any major work so as to get qualified for award of Ext.P1 tender. The petitioner is a Company incorporated recently but the documents produced by the petitioner in support of their experience, financial status, etc. were of one M/s. Malabar Plus Constructions, which is a partnership firm. Therefore, respondents 1 to 4 rejected the pre-qualification bid of the petitioner rightly.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Chandran Pillai assisted by Advocate Jomy George appearing for the petitioner, argued that the estimated cost of the subject work is ₹11,34,04,792. The condition as to previous experience is that one shall have experience of having successfully completed at least one similar work costing more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work under tender. Ext.P3 Certificate of Experience issued by the Public Works Department in favour of the petitioner would show that the petitioner has executed and satisfactorily completed a work WPC No.13877/2020 :9: for more than 40% of the estimated cost of work in Ext.P1 NIT. The total mark allocable for experience is 175. As the petitioner satisfied the criteria laid down by the respondents, respondents 1 to 4 ought to have awarded full marks to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was given only 58 marks.
9. As regards low marks awarded to financial strength of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the petitioner's banker has issued Ext.P5 certificate stating that the cash credit limit of the petitioner is ₹5 Crores and the bank is ready to finance Ext.P1 work with the total PAC of ₹11,34,04,792/-. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been awarded more marks for Financial Strength, whereas the petitioner has been awarded only 22 marks out of 40. Had the petitioner been awarded appropriate marks under the heads 'experience' and 'financial strength', the petitioner would have been qualified for the tender and the petitioner being the lowest tenderer, Ext.P1 work would have been awarded to the petitioner.
10. The Senior Counsel urged that the criteria for WPC No.13877/2020 : 10 : allocation of marks was not disclosed in Ext.P1 NIT. It is a settled proposition that all relevant particulars in the matter of processing and awarding of tender should be disclosed to the bidders in advance so as to avoid arbitrariness. This was not done. The respondents have allegedly resorted to Ext.P10 norms for evaluation of pre-qualification of tenders. Ext.P10 norms were notified by the Government long back. There is no whisper in Ext.P1 NIT about Ext.P10 or about any criteria that will be followed in the matter of allocation of marks. If respondents 1 to 4 intended to follow Ext.P10, then indeed a copy thereof ought to have been supplied to all intending bidders. This was not done.
11. Ext.P10 has been dug up and followed, solely to favour certain Contractors by ousting eligible and competent Bidders, contended learned Senior Counsel. The learned Senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in Educomp Solutions Ltd. and others v. State of Assam and others [(2006) 3 GLR 117] and argued that if the criteria/parametres for evaluation of the bid on the WPC No.13877/2020 : 11 : basis of score on a scale of hundred was not indicated in the tender notification, then the tender process should be treated as vitiated. The Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in W.P. (C) No.2261/2017, wherein it was held that if the evaluation criteria is evolved after submission of bids, the tender process would be vitiated. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Ashokan T. v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KHC 713], the Senior Counsel argued that in the absence of publication of Ext.P10, it should not have been followed. Furthermore, Ext.P10 norms were of the year 1996. Decades have passed and the evaluation process of tenders by the Government has also undergone substantial changes. Therefore, it would be unjust to follow Ext.P10 norms after 24 years of its adoption.
12. Ext.P10 is not a norm which is included in the PWD manual. Ext.P10 itself shows that it was intended to be a confidential document, not intended for publication. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that Ext.P10 WPC No.13877/2020 : 12 : was prepared by Chief Engineers' Committee. Ext.P10 has been prepared by Chief Engineer (National Highways) and it is not discernible therefrom that it was intended to apply to works of the PWD. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the respondents have not disclosed the marks awarded to other tenderers. Ext.P5 Bank Certificate has been misappreciated by respondents 1 to 4. The criteria given in Ext.P10 norms, goes against Clauses 2.2 and 2.6 of Ext.P2.
13. As regards the allegation of the respondents on the inexperience of the petitioner, the counsel argued that the petitioner was a partnership firm earlier and it was converted into a Private Limited Company as such. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New Horizons Limited and another v. Union of India and others [(1995) 1 SCC 478], the counsel argued that the experience accumulated by the partnership firm can be counted as experience of the newly incorporated company. The counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble WPC No.13877/2020 : 13 : High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No.2184/2013 in support of this contention.
14. The State Attorney Sri. K.V. Sohan representing respondents 1 to 4 pointed out that in the present tender process, the same criteria and norms as contained in Ext.P10 have been followed and applied to all the bidders. Therefore, the petitioner cannot legally raise any objection. In the petitioner's case, the petitioner is a newly incorporated company. Experience gained by a partnership firm earlier cannot be treated as the experience of the incorporated company. The learned State Attorney pointed out that Clause 2.2 of Ext.P2 specifically mandates that the experience gained should be "in his name". Though this was not a ground for rejection of the petitioner's bid, if this Court for any reason remits the matter back for reconsideration, the petitioner's bid will have to be rejected at the pre-qualification stage for this reason. Clauses 1.10 and 1.11 of Ext.P2 clearly make a distinction between a partnership firm and a company incorporated. The learned State Attorney argued WPC No.13877/2020 : 14 : that since the decision to apply Ext.P10 norms was taken before opening the bids and since the criteria contained therein was applied to all participating bidders and also because the said criteria was pre-existing, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance in that regard.
15. Learned counsel for the 5 th respondent Advocate Sathyanatha Menon argued that the writ petition itself is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party since the proceedings challenged by the petitioner is of the Committee of Chief Engineers and the said Committee has not been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition. Furthermore, all the bidders ought to have been made parties in the writ petition, which has not been done by the petitioner. The petitioner is an incorporated company but the petitioner produced documents relating to a dissolved partnership firm for the purpose of establishing its experience. This is impermissible. Experience gained by a partnership cannot be treated as experience of a newly incorporated legal entity. Ext.P5 Bank Guarantee does not show that the assurances WPC No.13877/2020 : 15 : given therein were to the petitioner-company. Therefore, in effect, there is no valid Bank Guarantee provided by the petitioner.
16. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3190/2020 and pointed out that the scope of judicial review in the matter of award of Government contracts is limited and the petitioner has not raised any points requiring interference by this Court. Even though the petitioner has alleged malafide, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove and establish malafide. Therefore, the writ petition is without any bona fide and it is liable to be dismissed.
17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Attorney appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
18. The argument of the petitioner is that the Ext.P1 NIT did not disclose the criteria for awarding marks under various heads. Clause 2.2 stated that the intending bidder must have experience of having successfully completed one WPC No.13877/2020 : 16 : similar work costing more than 40% of the estimated cost of work put under tender. The petitioner had produced documents to show that it had satisfactorily completed one PWD work costing more than 40% of the work estimated in Ext.P1 NIT and hence it should have been granted more marks than 58/175.
19. It is to be noted that Clause 2.2 of Ext.P2 lays down only 'eligibility and qualification' of the bidder. Clause 2.7 states that the bidder shall provide evidence satisfactory to the employer of his eligibility and capability and adequacy of resources to effectively perform the subject contract. Clause 2.7(a) specifically required that the bidder shall submit details of experience and past performance of the works of similar nature in the last five years with certified/attested/notarised copies of certificates from the clients as detailed in clause 2.4. Therefore, necessarily the petitioner ought to have produced copies of certificates of all their past performance of the works of similar nature in order to prove their superior experience and to assess their WPC No.13877/2020 : 17 : comparative merits. The petitioner was aware that what was called for under Ext.P1 NIT, was competitive bids and respondents 1 to 4 would necessarily assess the comparative merits of the bidders in the matter of past experience also. The petitioner was awarded marks for experience on the basis of documents made available by them. The petitioner has no case that others including 5 th respondent, had lesser experience, but were awarded higher marks.
20. Ext.10 provides for the norms of evaluation of pre- qualification tender. It provides criteria for awarding marks. The factors such as Structure, Financial Status, Resources and Experience, on which marks are awarded, are disclosed and are made necessary requirements in Ext.P1 NIT and Ext.P2 pre-qualification information. When these factors are disclosed, it is further not necessary for respondents 1 to 4 to divulge in advance as to how these parameters will be assessed by the Chief Engineers' Committee and how much marks will be awarded for each element. As long as all WPC No.13877/2020 : 18 : bidders are evaluated by the same criteria and as long as there is no element of arbitrariness in division of marks among various factors, the action of the respondents in following Ext.P10 cannot be faulted on the ground of its non- publication. The judgment in Ashokan T. (Supra) would not be of any help to the petitioner, because the said judgment dealt with non-publication of a condition conferring price preference to certain bidders. In the present case, all bidders are subjected to same norms for pre-qualification.
21. As regards the lower marks awarded to the petitioner under the head 'financial strength', it is to be noted that in Ext.P5 certificate produced by the petitioner from the Federal Bank, the Bank has stated that the petitioner is enjoying cash credit limit of ₹5,00,00,000/-. Though the Bank, in Ext.P5, has stated that they are ready to finance Ext.P1 work, it cannot be considered as the financial strength of the petitioner, since the offer of the Bank will be subject to conditions of the Bank. Clause 2.6 of Ext.P2 required that the bidder shall submit his bank certificates specifically WPC No.13877/2020 : 19 : showing access to lines of credit and valid proof showing availability of other financial resources to meet the requirement. It has been further stated that the bank certificates does not showing the amount of credit limit sanctioned to the bidder is liable to be rejected. It is therefore evident that the respondents will not assess the financial strength of a bidder on the basis of offers of future financial assistance made by a Bank. Respondents 1 to 4 were justified in evaluating the financial strength of the petitioner on the basis of cash credit limit available to the petitioner as on date.
22. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that it was due to the adherence to Ext.P10 norms that the petitioner was awarded lower marks. This is especially so when the petitioner has no case that other bidders who are qualified for technical bid, also had cash credit limit of only ₹5 Crores or less. In the circumstances, the award of tender to a more qualified bidder, who has proved better past experience and stronger financial position, cannot be found WPC No.13877/2020 : 20 : fault with.
23. Another argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that the norms of selection as contained in Ext.P10 are contrary to Clauses 2.2 and 2.6 of Ext.P2 tender conditions. Classes 2.2 and 2.6 of Ext.P2 read as follows:-
"2.2 The intending Bidder must have in his name as a prime contractor experience of having successfully completed lease one similar work costing more than 40% (Forty percentage) of the estimated cost of work put to tender, for Government, Semi Government Clients during the last 05 (five) years ending last day of month previous to the month in which bid applications are invited.
2.6 The Bidder should possess adequate working capital of more than 10% of the probable estimated cost of work for which he is bidding. For this the Bidder shall submit his Bank's certificates specifically showing access to lines of credit and valid proofs showing availability of other financial resources to meet the requirement. Bank's certificates does not showing the amount of credit limit sanctioned to the Bidder is liable to rejected and the Bidder will be disqualified without any notice. In case of bank certificates showing sanctioned credit limit and utilised credit limit, the Employer shall take the balance available credit limit only for evaluation purpose."
A Perusal of the said Clauses 2.2 and 2.6 would show that there is no inconsistency between the provisions made under the said Clauses and the norms formulated in Ext.P10. WPC No.13877/2020 : 21 :
24. As regards non-publication of Ext.P10 norms, respondents 1 to 4 have stated that the said norms were fixed by the Chief Engineers' Committee on 22.07.1996. The norms were fixed on the basis of Ext.R1(c)-G.O. dated 07.07.1987. The said Government Order stipulated that the selection of the pre-qualification will be done by a Committee consisting of Chief Engineer (General), the Chief Engineer (Roads and Bridges) and the Chief Engineer (Building and Local works). It is based on Annexure-R3(c) Government Order that the norms for award of marks were framed. The norms fixed in Ext.P10 were followed by the Government since then. The pre-bid evaluation in the present case was also conducted on the basis of Ext.P10. The assessment was done by the Chief Engineers' Committee on 03.07.2020. The financial bid was not opened at the time of pre-bid evaluation. The rates quoted by the bidders were not known to the Chief Engineers' Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the criteria for evaluation contained in Ext.P10 and followed by the Government since the year 1996 was WPC No.13877/2020 : 22 : intended to oust the petitioner from the work under Ext.P1 NIT. The petitioner has no case that Ext.P10 norms are not applied equally to all the bidders. The petitioner has no case that the same criteria is not followed with respect to all the participating bidders.
25. The contention of the Senior Counsel that there is no evidence to prove that Ext.P10 norms were framed by the Chief Engineers' Committee as required in Annexure-R3(c) order dated 07.07.1987, cannot be accepted because the letter dated 22.07.1996 issued by the Chief Engineer and forming part of Annexure-R3(b) specifically state that the norms for evaluation were fixed by the Chief Engineers' Committee on 22.07.1996. Hence, the fact that it is the Chief Engineer (National Highways and Administration) who has signed Ext.P10 norms, by itself cannot be taken as an indication to show that the norms were not framed by the Chief Engineers' Committee.
26. The argument made on behalf of the petitioner that Exts.P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c) works undertaken and WPC No.13877/2020 : 23 : completed by the petitioner were not considered for awarding marks for experience, does not have factual support. The works at Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) were for amounts exceeding 40% of the estimated cost of Ext.P1-NIT, whereas Ext.P3(c) work is of a lesser amount. The petitioner has been awarded 58 marks out of 175. Therefore, it cannot be held that the certificates of experience produced by the petitioner were not considered for awarding marks.
27. The learned Senior Counsel's argument is that if the norms formulated pursuant to Ext.R3(c) order dated 07.07.1987 is followed at this distance of time, then Clause
(iv) thereof which stipulated that there should be a minimum of four prequalified contractors to ensure fair and reasonable competition, also ought to have been followed. In the present case, there were only three prequalified contractors. To meet this argument, the learned State Attorney made available for perusal of this Court, G.O.(MS) No. 19/2008/PWD dated 07.04.2008 of the Public Works (H) Department, which clarified that in "double envelop system", WPC No.13877/2020 : 24 : requirement of minimum number of effective tenderers is not relevant. In the light of the said G.O., the tendering process cannot be found fault with for not having minimum four number of prequalified contractors.
28. The State Attorney as well as the learned counsel for the 5th respondent strenuously argued that the experience gained by the partnership was taken as the experience gained by the newly incorporated petitioner-company and the financial strength of the partnership was taken as financial strength of the company. Since partnership is a collective of persons and the company being an independent legal person, it is not proper to consider the documents in respect of the partnership firm made available by the petitioner for the purpose of assessing the eligibility and merit of the petitioner-company. As I have already found that the rejection of the petitioner's bid at pre-qualification stage is justified, I do not deem it necessary to delve upon the said legal issue.
WPC No.13877/2020: 25 :
For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out a case for interfering with Ext.P1 tender proceedings. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/27/10/2020 WPC No.13877/2020 : 26 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF NOTICE INVITING TENDER (NIT) DATED 3.6.2020 INCLUDING THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PRE-
QUALIFICATION INFORMATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 5.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.7.2020 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF CHIEF ENGINEER'S COMMITTEE HELD ON 3.7.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
12.6.2020 ISSUED BY M/S.FEDERAL BANK
LIMITED, PANDIKAD BRANCH TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
SRI. SHAJI POULOSE, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.7.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
WPC No.13877/2020: 27 : EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 26.6.2020 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-QUALIFICATION OF TENDERS PRELIMINARY SCRUTINY.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTICE INVTING TENDER REGARDING THE EXAMINATION AND EVALUATION OF BIDS EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED NORMS FORMULATED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.3/2017/PWD DATED 09.08.2017 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 15.01.2020 PASSED BY THE PARTNERS OF MALABAR PLUS CONSTRUCTIONS EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.06.2020 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET PRODUCED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS ON 31.03.2020 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R3(c) TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.
52/1987/PW&T DATED 07.07.1987.
ANNEXURE R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.CE/A2/TC/92 DATED 22.07.1996 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF WPC No.13877/2020 : 28 : ENGINEER, PWD ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P10 NORMS ANNEXURE R3(e) TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.
101/1990/PW&T DATED 19.10.1990.
ANNEXURE R3(f) TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P)NO.3/ 2017/PWD DATED 09.08.2017.
EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PWD CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 3.6.2020.
EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PREQUALIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 19.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER IN THE WEBSITE E-
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT (E-GP) WEBSITE https://etenders.kerala.gov.in AND DOWNLOADED BY 5TH RESPONDENT FROM THE SAID WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ONGOING WORK OF MALABR PLUS CONTSTRUCTIONS AND M/S.MALABAR PLUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE E-GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT (E-GP) WEBSITE https://etenders.kerala.gov.in ALONG WITH CONSOLIDATED LIST OF THE WORK.
EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE BID DOCUMENTS DOWNLOADED BY THIS RESPONDENT FROM THE WEBSITE E-GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT (E-GP) WEBSITE https://etenders.kerala.gov.in EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER COMPRISING THE TECHNICAL BID SUBMITTED BY MALABAR PLUS CONSTRUCTIONS DATED 5/6/2020 WITH THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ND NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE ISSUED TO THIS RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/7/2020.
WPC No.13877/2020: 29 : EXHIBIT R5(g) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE (PAGE NO.21) OF PART I INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS OF STANDARD BID DOCUMENT.
EXHIBIT R5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (PAGE 115 AND 116) OF THE STANDARD BIDDING DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS TO THE PETITIONER.