Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

Kerala High Court Quashes Tender Award, Slams Favoritism and Procedural Lapses in Public Procurement

09 September 2024 9:30 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has quashed the award of a tender by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation for the supply of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pots, citing procedural lapses and favoritism. The court found that the tender process was not conducted in a transparent manner, with undue advantages given to a competitor who did not meet the required technical qualifications. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., underscores the importance of strict adherence to tender conditions to maintain the integrity of public procurement processes.

The petitioner, Kaveri Fertilizer Industries, engaged in the manufacture and distribution of organic manures and bio-fertilizers, along with HDPE pots, had participated in an e-tender issued by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. The tender, part of the Janakeeyasoothranam project, sought the supply of UV-protected HDPE multi-layer pots, potting mixtures, and vegetable seedlings.

The petitioner contended that It was the only bidder that met all the technical qualifications as per the tender specifications. However, the tender was awarded to the sixth respondent, Soumya Plastics, despite its failure to initially provide required certifications, including a crucial CIPET report on the quality and durability of the pots.

The court found that the fifth respondent (the Deputy Director of Agriculture) had acted beyond its mandate by granting additional time to Soumya Plastics to submit the required CIPET certification after the technical bids were opened. This action, the court noted, violated the conditions laid out in the Store Purchase Manual and the tender notice itself, which required all bidders to submit complete documentation at the time of the bid submission.

The court observed, "Granting a month’s extension to the sixth respondent to submit essential documents post the opening of technical bids not only contravenes the tender conditions but also creates an uneven playing field, undermining the integrity of the procurement process.”

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. emphasized that the actions of the fifth respondent appeared to favor Soumya Plastics, which was not technically qualified at the time of bid submission. The court highlighted that the tender conditions mandated the use of virgin HDPE material with specific durability and environmental standards, which were not initially met by Soumya Plastics.

“It is evident from the records that the sixth respondent was given preferential treatment, which cannot be justified under the principles of fair and transparent public procurement,” the judgment stated.

The court’s decision was grounded in established principles of administrative law, particularly the need for fairness and transparency in government tenders. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. V. Nair Coal Services Ltd., emphasizing that any relaxation of tender conditions must apply uniformly to all bidders and that essential conditions cannot be waived arbitrarily.

The judgment clarified that judicial Intervention in tender processes is warranted when the decision-making process is arbitrary or when favoritism is evident. In this case, the court found sufficient grounds to interfere, given the clear procedural violations and the apparent favoritism shown towards the sixth respondent.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment sends a strong message about the importance of adhering to tender specifications and maintaining transparency in public procurement processes. By quashing the tender awarded to Soumya Plastics, the court has reaffirmed the principle that all bidders must be treated equally and that any deviation from prescribed procedures must be justifiable and applied uniformly. The court’s directive to re-evaluate the bids, starting with negotiations with the petitioner, is expected to restore fairness to the procurement process and prevent similar issues in future tenders.

 

Date of Decision: 2nd September 2024

Kaveri Fertilizer Industries v. State of Kerala & Others

Similar News