Court Dismisses Writ Petitions on Tender Process, Finding No Breach of Conditions

The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no arbitrariness, illegality, malafides, or unfairness in the tender process. It concluded that there was no fundamental breach of tender conditions by the third respondent, and the evaluation by respondents 1 and 2 aligned with principles of fairness and transparency.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of tender conditions by the third respondent.
2. Legality and impact of Clause B.20 regarding GST.
3. Submission of additional documents by the third respondent.
4. Adequacy of facilities and compliance with Clause B.04 by the third respondent.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Tender Conditions by the Third Respondent:
The petitioner argued that the third respondent violated the conditions stipulated in the tender document by submitting documents not called for in the tender notice and indicating the price details in places other than the designated price bid. The petitioner contended that this should have led to the disqualification of the third respondent's bid. However, the court found that the additional documents submitted by the third respondent did not interfere with the tender conditions. The court noted that respondents 1 and 2 could ignore any extraneous documents submitted by the bidders, and the inclusion of such documents did not violate the tender conditions.

2. Legality and Impact of Clause B.20 Regarding GST:
The petitioner highlighted an anomaly in Clause B.20 of the special conditions of the contract, which deals with taxes and the passing of input tax credit benefits to KSEBL. The petitioner argued that the clause was impractical due to variations in GST rates and input tax credits. However, the court observed that Clause B.20 was formulated to ensure fair and transparent conditions for procuring materials. The court also noted that the special conditions of the contract provided a clear methodology for price variations, which addressed the petitioner's concerns about GST rate changes.

3. Submission of Additional Documents by the Third Respondent:
The petitioner claimed that the third respondent submitted additional documents, including a certificate stating that the effect of GST credit was considered in the quoted price, which was not permissible under the tender conditions. The court found that the inclusion of such documents did not violate the tender conditions. The court emphasized that any communication from a bidder that was not expressly accepted by the purchaser could be ignored. Therefore, the third respondent's submission of additional documents did not invalidate their bid.

4. Adequacy of Facilities and Compliance with Clause B.04 by the Third Respondent:
The petitioner argued that the third respondent did not have sufficient facilities, such as water tanks for curing poles and adequate molds for manufacturing poles, as required by Clause B.04 of the special conditions of the contract. The court found that Clause B.04 was flexible and did not mandate the immediate availability of all facilities. The court noted that the third respondent was making arrangements to comply with the yard requirements within the Electrical Circle concerned, and this issue could be addressed after the award of the bid.

5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
Respondents 1 and 2 argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had agreed to approach civil courts in Thiruvananthapuram for disputes arising from the contract. The court did not explicitly address this argument in the judgment but proceeded to evaluate the merits of the petitioner's claims. Ultimately, the court found no arbitrariness, illegality, malafides, or unfairness in the evaluation of the bids by respondents 1 and 2. The court emphasized that the master of the contract has reasonable flexibility in choosing its partner, considering the price bid in the larger public interest.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish any case of arbitrariness, illegality, malafides, or unfairness in the tender process. The court affirmed that there was no fundamental breach of the tender conditions by the third respondent, and the evaluation by respondents 1 and 2 was in line with the principles of fairness and transparency.

---