Ext.P3 decision by which Malampuzha Grama Panchayat awarded the works covered by Ext.P1 tender notice to the second respondent, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner is a registered PWD contractor. As per Ext.P1 notice, competitive sealed tenders were invited for a few civil works of the Panchayat. In Ext.P1, it is provided that sealed tenders shall be submitted on 29/11/2013. It was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the date for submission of the tender was later changed to 30.11.2013. According to the petitioner, he was prevented by a group of persons, owing allegiance to the second respondent, from submitting the tender and consequently, he had entrusted his tender to one Sreekumar, a member of the Panchayat, for submission in the office of the panchayat. It is alleged by him that the said member handed over the tender to the Head Clerk of the Panchayat and when the Head Clerk attempted to drop the tender in the box kept in the Panchayat for the said purpose on the relevant day, he was physically prevented by the second respondent and others from dropping the tender in the box. As the tender of the petitioner was not dropped in the box, the same was not opened along with other tenders received pursuant to Ext P1 notice. It is alleged by the petitioner that later when the matter was considered by the Committee of the Panchayat, the Committee opened and examined the tender of the petitioner also. According to the petitioner, though the tender of the petitioner was found to be a valid one and the lowest, the Committee did not award the works to the petitioner. Instead, the works were awarded to the second respondent as per Ext.P3 decision.
3. On 18.12.2013, when the matter has come up for admission, this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 for a period of one month. The interim order is not seen extended thereafter. There is nothing on record to indicate the further developments in the matter, if any, after the expiry of the interim order. Petitioner has though taken out notice to the respondents by Speed Post, no counter affidavit is seen filed by them.
4. Ext.P3 is the minutes of the meeting of the Malampuzha Grama Panchayat in which the decision was taken. It is evident from Ext P3 that on the day fixed for submission of the tenders, petitioner was prevented from entering the office of the panchayat on the ground that only contractors undertaking works of Malampuzha Grama Panchayat are entitled to participate in the tender process. It is also evident from the said decision that, in the circumstances, the petitioner had entrusted the tender for submission to a member of the Panchayat and the said member had handed over the tender of the petitioner to the Head Clerk of the Panchayat and that when he attempted to drop the tender in the box kept in the Panchayat for the said purpose, he was physically prevented by the second respondent and others from dropping the tender in the box. It is also evident from the said decision that, in the circumstances, the tender of the petitioner was retained separately, after recording the time of submission and reasons for non submission in the box. It is further evident from Ext P3 that at the time of the opening of the tender also, on account of the objections raised by other contractors, the tender of the petitioner was not opened and the Vice President of the Panchayat at whose presence, the tenders were opened, recommended the tender of the petitioner also for consideration along with other tenders. It is recorded in Ext P3 that even though 13 persons have collected tender forms, only 2 persons have submitted their tenders. Even though the petitioner was turned out to be the lowest tenderer, Ext P3 indicates that the Panchayat Committee decided to reject the tender of the petitioner solely for the reason that the majority of the members of the Committee are not in favour of the petitioner.
5. It is thus evident from the recitals in Ext P3 that a cartel was formed by the contractors with a view to exclude the petitioner from submitting the tender. Ext P3 does not prescribe the manner of submission of the tenders. As such, it cannot be held that the petitioner has not submitted the tender at all. If what is recorded in Ext P3 as to what has happened on the relevant day is correct, petitioner cannot be found fault with for having entrusted his tender for submission with a member of the Panchayat, who could enter the office of the Panchayat, without being subjected to any obstruction. No reason whatsoever is stated in Ext P3 to reject the tender of the petitioner, except that the majority of the members did not support the petitioner. This reason does not stand the scrutiny of judicial review. The decision of the Panchayat in accepting the tender of the second respondent, ignoring the valid and the lowest tender of the petitioner, for the aforesaid reasons, is illegal and arbitrary. As I have found that the contractors have formed a cartel to exclude the petitioner, acceptance of the bid of the second respondent is against the public interest as well.
6. Ext.P3 decision of the Panchayat is therefore quashed. The first respondent is directed to award the works covered by Ext P1 notice to the petitioner within a period of one month from today, if his tender is otherwise valid and the works have not been executed in full by this time.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
tgs Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
(true copy)