Ramachandra Menon, J.
Petitioner, who is stated to be a public spirited person, has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry into the entire proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 tender proceedings, register a crime and investigate into the corruption involved in the acceptance of tenders for the procurement of various machineries by the Kannur District Panchayath, forthwith;
ii) Call for the entire records leading up to the acceptance of tenders for the purchase of various machineries by the Kannur District Panchayath pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions.”
2. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to the tender floated by the third respondent with regard to the procurement of agricultural machinery for farmers in the Kannur District Panchayat. The case of the petitioner is that the transaction sought to be pursued by the third respondent is not transparent and that the machinery and equipments are sought to be purchased at much higher rate, which requires a detailed enquiry as there is rampant corruption. According to the petitioner, the machinery sought to be procured are all of much low quality and standard.
3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit rebutting the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner, also giving sequence of events as to the actual facts and figures. Copies of relevant documents have been produced along with the counter affidavit of the third respondent as Exhibits R3(a) to R3(c). Similarly, the fourth respondent has filed an exhaustive statement producing copies of relevant documents as Exhibits R4(a) to R4(m).
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as leaned State Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent.
5. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the third respondent, with respect to the year 2013-2014, had formulated three projects, namely, (i) Agricultural mechanization, (ii) Agro machinery service centre - purchase of essential machinery and (iii) Supply of Agricultural Machinery to agricultural farmers. In furtherance to implementation of the above projects, steps were taken inviting tenders. Finalisation of tender proceedings is stated as in conformity with Exhibit P8 guidelines issued in this regard. It is also pointed out that the averments of the petitioner that machinery is intended to be procured at much higher rates (to an extent of ₹1.48 crores) is far from the track of truth in so far as all the equipments under the three different projects are sought to be purchased with a cost of ₹93,19,838/- as clearly given in paragraph 7 of the statement filed by the fourth respondent.
6. The learned State Attorney submits on instructions that the version of the petitioner that the tender was opened on same day, fixed as the last date for submitting application is not correct. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the tender, the machinery have been supplied by the successful bidder and they have been distributed among the beneficiaries/farmers. Paragraph 6 of the statement filed by the fourth respondent is relevant, which reads as under:
“6. It is submitted that the Tender notices were advertised in two leading dailies as on 4.9.2013 and 5.9.2013. Tender Notice was also published in official website of Agriculture Department 'Karshikakeralam' for wide publicity. Accordingly tender schedules were prepared as per the specifications obtained. True copy of the schedule is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(f). Tender forms were sold to firms viz. RAIDCO, for (11 items), Kerala Agro Industries Corporation (11 items) M/s Kadoor Sales Corporation Ramanattukara dealers of New Holland Tractors, (2 items) M/s Allianze Mechanization, Taliparamba (2 item) M/s.Unique Mahindra, Thrissur dealers of Mahindra Tractors (2 items), M/s.Pan World Equipments and Services Alappuzha, dealers of Duetz-Samay Tractors, (1 item) M/s.Preet Farm Machinery, Palakkad (1 item) dealers of Preet Combine. Time of receipt of tender was upto 2.PM 25.9.2013 which was clearly stated in the tender notice. Four firms M/s.RAIDCO, M/s.Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, M/s.Kaddor Sales Corporation Ramanattukara, and M/s.Allianze Mechanization Taliparamba submitted the tenders in time. The tenders of M/s.Pan World Equipments and services, Alappuzha, M/s.Preet Farm Machinery, Palakkad, M/s.Unique Mahindra, Trissur, were not accepted, since they reached office after the stipulated time. The tenders were opened at 3.30 pm on same day in the presence of tenderers and Smt.A.P.Sujatha, Chairperson of Development Standing Committee of District Panchayath. For 3 items, three tenders were obtained and for 7 items two tenders were obtained and for one item only one tender was obtained in the prescribed specification.”
7. Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent is extracted as under:
“11. It is submitted that the contentions raised in the grounds A, B, C and E are repetition of the factual position discussed above. With regard to the allegations raised in the Ground D, it is submitted that the tender forms were available from 4.9.2013 onwards. Therefore the tender proceedings was in strict adherence of the mandates of the Ext.P8 guidelines. Also, the allegation that no majro manufactures were participated in the tender proceedings deserves no merit and such a contention is raised without even appreciating the reality. Such an attitude is absolutely impermissible. It is submitted that products of many of the agricultural manufacture giants participated in the tender proceedings including that of John deere, New Holland, Mahindra and Mahindra Mitsubhjishi and Kubota. With regard to the contention raised in the ground F of the above writ petition, it is submitted that the case on hand is not at all a fit case for invoking a vigilance enquiry as the petitioner failed to put forward any case of corruption, nepotism and favoritism in the tender proceedings.”
8. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court quite casually, without even doing the minimum exercise with regard to the actual facts and figures. This Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there is absolutely no public interest. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
vgs25.6.14
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE