The petitioner is a labour contract Co-operative Society, who had applied for manual dredging work notified by the 4th respondent. The petitioner's threshold eligibility was rejected by the 4th respondent. The petitioner submits that B1 and B2 zones are still kept vacant and no allotment has been made till date. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent however, submits that B1 zone has been alloted to them. Even then, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that B2 zone is vacant and the same may be alloted to the petitioner; especially since, Ext.P8 judgment specifically observes that the Division Bench judgment produced at Ext.P7 and the principle laid down therein can be resorted to in the event of there being no eligible Societies to carry on manual dredging work.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would however submit that, the tender was awarded for an year and the same expires in November, 2014. A fresh notification will be made and there would be no question of any awarding of tender at this point, which would in fact enable the petitioner to claim for an extended period of one year and would also result in deciding upon the question of eligibility, contrary to that found by the official respondents.
4. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is on Exts.P7 and P8 judgment. In fact, this Court has in W.P.(C) No.25928 of 2013 dated, 28.03.2014 considered both the said judgments in the following manner.
13. The contention of the 6th respondent as also the Government Pleader, that the 6th respondent was participated only following Ext.R6(b) is belied by the clarification in Ext.P15. Ext.R6(b) judgment was issued in the first year, in which such tender notification was made. Many of the Co-operative Societies, who did not have the threshold eligibility were participated in the tender process. The Division Bench, only in the circumstances existing at that point of time, had directed that all the Societies be treated as qualified to prefer tenders, especially since, there was some confusion regarding the manner in which the tender proceedings had to be carried out.
14. But, however, later, in the next preceding year when again, the tender proceedings were challenged before this Court, a learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petitions by Ext.P15. In Ext.P15, the Division Bench judgment at R6(b) was specifically noticed. It was also found that the Division Bench's observation in Ext.R6(b) cannot be treated as directions laying down a permanent solution to the problem; so as to be continued year after year. The learned Single Judge specifically found, that the Division Bench, was only trying to resolve the problem that was thrown up by the cases before it, and the directions therein cannot be applied in the subsequent years. Ext.P15 categorically found that the societies who do not have the object of manual dredging cannot be participated in such tenders, quoting Rule 180 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. In the teeth of the binding precedent, as disclosed in Ext.P15, neither the 6th respondent nor the Government can take up a contention that in participating the 6th respondent, the authorities were only following the directions in Ext.R6(b) judgment. This Court categorically found that, without qualifying the eligibility criteria, no society could stake a claim to be participated in the tender proceedings.
5. The said judgment was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A No. 639 of 2014. The Division Bench judgment and judgment of the learned single Judge referred to in the above paragraphs are respectively Exts.P7 and P8 judgments. In such circumstance, especially considering the fact that the period is over and the petitioner's eligibility itself was found against, by the official respondents, there can be no order at this point of time, directing award of the work even to a vacant zone. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the eligibility of the petitioner and despite the rejection of the petitioner's eligibility, the petitioner would be entitled to apply in a fresh tender wherein, the eligibility question would have to be considered afresh by the official respondents.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.