The petitioner responded to the notice inviting tender for supply of 13 items of low density poly ethylene packing cover. Ext.P2 is the list of items. The petitioner had quoted the lowest rate in respect of four items. Thereafter,the respondent-Kerala State Co-operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. held negotiation with the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and other tenderers. The 3rd respondent herein quoted the lowest rate for 13 items listed out in Ext.P2 and contract was confirmed in the name of the 3rd respondent. It is challenging the award of contract to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he being the lowest tenderer in respect of four items, there is no scope for holding negotiation with others. The respondent- Consumer Federation Ltd. has no authority to hold negotiation with all participants in the tender as it would amount to divulging the rate quoted by different persons which is against the spirit and transparency as required in public tender.
3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent- Consumers' Federation Ltd. submitted that the procedure adopted by the Federation is fair and transparent as it gave opportunity to all tenderers. There is no arbitrariness in inviting all tenderer for negotiation. There is no hard and fast rule which stipulates that only first and second lowest tenderers should be invited for negotiation.
4. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution needs to interfere with the tender process only if there is any arbitrariness on the part of the tender issuing authority. Different procedures and mode prescribed by the authorities for awarding the contract cannot be interfered unless the court finds it results in arbitrariness. In Food Corporation of India v. Kamadenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993 (1) SCC 71),it was held that highest tenderer can claim no right to have his tender accepted. It is further held “Inadequacy” of the price offered is the highest tender would be a cogent ground for negotiating with the tenderer giving them equal opportunity to revise their bids with a view to obtain a highest available price. Thus, negotiation can be held with all the tenderers to obtain lowest price.
In view of the above, there is no arbitrariness in selecting the 3rd respondent who is admittedly quoted the lowest rate. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere and accordingly. dismiss the writ petition.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge.
dpk /True copy/ P.S to Judge.