Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The reliefs sought in these writ petitions are virtually one and the same and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgement. The parties and documents are referred to in this judgement, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C). 26853 of 2019.

2. Pursuant to the decision of the Government of Kerala to apply part of the proceeds of the financial aid received from the World Bank through the Government of India for execution of the work, namely "KSTP-II -Upgrading Punalur to Ponkunnam Road (SH 8) Package 8A: Km 0+000 (Punalur) to KM 29+840 (Konni)"(the Work), the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), the Consultant Engineer of the Government of Kerala for the World Bank aided projects, invited bids for construction and completion of the Work. Ext.P1 is the procurement notice issued by KSTP in this connection. It is specified in Ext.P1 notice that the bidding will be conducted in accordance with the Wpc nos.26853 & 31556 of 2019 6 procedures prescribed in the Guidelines issued by the World Bank for procurement under IBRD loans and IDA credits (current edition) and it will be open to all eligible bidders as defined in the said Guidelines to participate in the bidding process. In terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) published in this regard by KSTP, the prospective bidders could be individuals or joint ventures and they were to submit technical as also financial bids.

6. A statement has been filed initially in W.P.(C).

No.26853 of 2019 on behalf of KSTP by its Chief Engineer contending, among others, that in terms of the Joint Venture agreement entered into by the petitioners in the writ petitions, M/s RDS Project Ltd. which is the lead member of the Joint Venture, alone is entitled to represent the Joint Venture and W.P.(C). No.26853 of 2019 instituted on behalf of the Joint Venture by the other Joint Venture partner is therefore not maintainable. It was also contended by KSTP in the statement that Clause 40 (1) of the ITB confers authority on KSTP to reject any bid and therefore the decision to disqualify the Joint Venture of the petitioner cannot be questioned by the petitioner on any ground whatsoever. It was also contended by KSTP in the statement that the construction of Palarivattom flyover by M/s RDS Project Ltd. was defective; that there Wpc nos.26853 & 31556 of 2019 9 are sufficient and strong reasons to conclude that M/s RDS Project Ltd. have committed serious irregularities and indulged in corruption in connection with the execution of the said work and therefore they are liable to be disqualified from the bid process in the light of Annexure R5(d) Guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. It was also contended by KSTP in the statement that in the light of the case registered against M/s RDS Project Ltd., the bid valuation committee has recommended to reject the bid submitted by the Joint Venture of the petitioner, and the Steering Committee of the KSTP has accepted the said recommendation.

22. Placing reliance on Clause 40(1) of the ITB, the learned Senior Government Pleader contended that the said provision confers authority on KSTP to disqualify the Joint Venture of the petitioner from the bidding process on account of the registration of a case against the Managing Director of the said company for offences with the necessary allegations falling under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Clause 40 (1) of ITB reads thus:

"24. The controversy in this case has arisen at the threshold. It cannot be disputed that this is an international competitive bidding which postulates keen competition and high efficiency. The bidders have or should have assistance of technical experts. The degree of care required in such a bidding is greater than in ordinary local bids for small works. It is essential to maintain the sanctity and integrity of process of tender/bid and also award of a contract. The appellant, Respondents 1 to 4 and Respondents 10 and 11 are all bound by the ITB which should be complied with scrupulously. In a work of this nature and magnitude where bidders who fulfil prequalification alone are invited to bid, adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-by by branding it as a pedantic approach, otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to the rule of law and our constitutional values. The very purpose of issuing rules/instructions is to ensure their enforcement lest the rule of law should be a casualty. Relaxation or waiver of a rule or condition, unless so provided under the ITB, by the State or its agencies (the appellant) in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the State agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. In our view such approach should always be avoided. Where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the rules, it has to be done strictly in compliance with the rules. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that adherence to the ITB or rules is the best principle to be followed, which is also in the best public interest."