Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner's grievance mainly is with regard to the non acceptance of its tender in respect of work covered by Ext.P1.

2. The relevant facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner show the following:

The first respondent is a company established by the Government of Kerala, who published a notice inviting tender for "Construction of Industrial Building (Standard Design Modules) for INKEL at Angamaly, for providing compound wall and yard works". Ext.P1 is the copy of the relevant pages of the tender document. The tender had to be submitted in two separate sealed covers, that is, (i) Technical Bid and (ii) Price Bid. It is averred that apart from the petitioner there were two other pre-qualified contractors and their price bids were opened on 12/04/2012 at 3 p.m and, the petitioner was the lowest tenderer for the work. Later, the first respondent decided to negotiate the rate quoted by the petitioner for certain items of work and the petitioner on 24/04/2012 submitted reduced rates for some items, which is evidenced by Ext.P2 letter. It is also alleged that on 27/04/2012, the petitioner was invited for another round of negotiation. On that day, the first respondent had invited the other two bidders including the second respondent and asked them to submit fresh rates for each item of works. According to the petitioner, this is in violation of all norms and procedures and a letter of protest was given as per Ext.P3. It is contended that unfair means have been adopted by the first respondent. Finally, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the tender submitted by the second respondent is being accepted. This Court by interim order dated 04/05/2012 restrained the first respondent from awarding the work.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the tender document itself it is noted that the company is established by the Government of Kerala. Ext.P4 produced along with the reply affidavit is the true extract of the information received by the petitioner from the website of the first respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that therein also it is published that 'INKEL' has been set up by the Government of Kerala and, therefore, the contention raised by the company cannot be accepted. It is also submitted that the company has been set up with the object of channelising the private capital as well as professional expertise into large scale infrastructure projects initiated by the various arms of the Government and, hence the said functions make it amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.