- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SUDHEER N.A., v. THE STATE OF KERALA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9809 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SUDHEER N.A.,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.N.M. ABDUL KAREEM, NEERUNGAL HOUSE, RAJAGIRI P.O.,
SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 104.
BY ADVS.
RAJESH VIJAYAN
SIKHA S.NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, THOZHIL BHAVAN,
VIKASBHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP . BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SUPPLY CO, MAVELI BHAVAN GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 020.
3 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SUPPLY CO, MAVELI BHAVAN GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 020.
4 THE MANAGER (NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT),
KERALA STATE CIVIL SULLIES CORPORATION,
MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 020.
5 ASSISTANT MANAGER ,
DISTRICT DEPOT, SUPPLYCO, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
PERUMBAVOOR 683 542.
SRI.APPU P S, GP
SMT. MOLLY JACOB(SC) SUPPLYCO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
1
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rdday of March, 2022 The petitioner responded to a tender notice issued by the 2nd respondent on 02.02.2022 for the work lifting, transportation, handling and delivery of ration articles from source godowns to destination godowns situated in several Taluks situated in the State of Kerala.
2. The petitioner states that he submitted his tender online. But, the tender has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not signed page No.2 of the tender. The said defect was noted only at the time of technical evaluation. The petitioner, therefore, submitted Ext.P2 representation and requested that the petitioner may not be disqualified for the minor omission.
3. The learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 to 5 entered appearance and contested the writ petition. The Standing Counsel controverted all the material
3
allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Standing Counsel urged that since admittedly the e-tender of the petitioner is defective, it cannot be considered. As long as other participants are not given opportunity to cure defects in tenders, the petitioner alone cannot be permitted to cure the defects.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 to 5.. This Court finds that in identical fact situations this Court in W.P.(C) No.41957 of 2018 had directed the tendering authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners therein. Following the said judgment, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rdrespondent to consider Ext.P2 representation dated 16.03.2022 filed by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks.
sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
Alert