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