Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It is mainly contended by Shri M.K. Damodaran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.31751/2009, copy of the minutes of the Chief Engineers' Committee will show that the disqualification of the petitioner is on the basis of two reasons which are non existent and therefore the same is arbitrary. It is submitted that both these reasons cannot be supported. With respect to the first one, it is submitted that the reason that the Government is taking steps to black list the petitioner, cannot be one which can be relied upon to disqualify the prequalification bid. What was issued by the Government is only a show cause notice proposing to black list the firm and this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.31712/2009 directed the respondents to issue a notice and to consider the contentions of the petitioner. It is submitted that no final orders have been passed by the Government and therefore that could not have been taken as a ground to disqualify the petitioner. As to the second reason shown in Ext.P4, it is submitted that with regard to Koottikoulam Tholpetty Coorg Road, wherein poor progress is attributed to the petitioner, the department itself has granted sufficient time to complete the work. It is pointed out that the notice itself was issued only on 9.11.2009 by the department, to which the petitioner had duly submitted a reply dated 16.11.2009. It is therefore submitted that as the contract has not been terminated at all, the same cannot be taken as a ground to disqualify them. It is therefore submitted that as both these grounds are non existing, the disqualification of the petitioner with regard to the three works cannot be supported. Further, it is pointed out that already the petitioner has been treated as qualified in respect of two items of works of the very same notification, the reason subsequently found out, is not having any nexus with the issue in question is concerned and it is a colourable exercise of the power. Learned Senior Counsel Shri M.K. Damodaran relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, viz. Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election commissioner, New Delhi and others (AIR 1978 SC 851), Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others {(2000) 2 SCC 617}, Reliance Energy Ltd. and another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. and others {(2007) 8 SCC 1}, M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others (2008 (4) KHC 934) and Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd v. Govt. of A.P. and others ( JT 2008 (12) SC 371), in support of the plea. It is contended that the rejection of the tender is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are bound to provide a level playing field and the petitioner has been discriminated against in that matter. It is submitted that the decision making process is tainted by arbitrariness and the reasons being unsupportable, Ext.P4 is liable to be quashed.

29. My attention was also invited by Mr. M.K. Damodaran, learned Senior Counsel, to a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.'s case (2008 (4) KHC 934) wherein the above decisions were considered in detail. It was held therein that for every Governmental actions reasons should be there and even with regard to the rejection of a tender, unless it is supported by reason, the action is vitiated.

30. The background of this case is thus, to be examined while considering the applicability of these principles to the fact situation. Evidently, in Ext.P4 the want of details with regard to the business, financial strength and supporting documents from the Bank to prove financial strength on the part of the petitioner, have been attributed. Therefore, the same forms part of the minutes of the committee. It cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the same. It is not a case where for the first time in the counter affidavit, reasons have been attributed. What is emphasised in the counter affidavit is by way of an illustration of the same by specifically pointing out certain instances to support the conclusions. Thus, it is not a case where the principle stated in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (AIR 1978 SC 851), is squarely attracted.

34. This Court cannot obviously sit in appeal over the observations of the Chief Engineer's Committee. A reading of the various decisions of the Apex Court and the principles stated therein will emphasis this aspect. What is emphasised by the various decisions is that this Court will not be concerned with the decision as such, but only the decision making process. It cannot be said that the petitioner was not given a level playing field or that they were not given any opportunity to submit the tender documents. The petitioner has not been singled out in this matter, in the sense that others were given any undue advantage to produce original documents, etc. The petitioner has also understood the contents of the tender notification while submitting documents and if there is anything lacking in those documents, the petitioner alone can be at fault. The Committee cannot also obviously allow another opportunity to the petitioner to produce or supplement the documents submitted along with the tender documents which will only be termed as favouritism or arbitrary exercise of power, by the other tenderers. The facts herein are not similar to the facts considered by this Court in M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.'s case (2008 (4) KHC