High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed due to lack of mala fid...

Aji Baker v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2022-11-15
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition
Writ petition dismissed due to lack of mala fides/arbitrariness and absence of material defects warranting interference under Article 226.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Aji Baker

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
  • NFSA Manager, KSCSC Ltd.
  • Depot Manager, KSCSC Ltd.
  • Anil Kumar V.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.R. Anison
  • • V. Bhargavi (Panangad)
  • • P.A. Rinusa

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Molly Jacob (Senior Counsel) , Supplyco

Case Synopsis & Summary

Aji Baker v. State of Kerala and Others concerns a writ petition challenging an NFSA tender in Punalur Taluk for lifting, transportation, handling and delivery of ration articles from source godowns to destination godowns. The petitioner contends that the fifth respondent’s bid ought to have been disqualified at the prequalification stage because the Annexure-IV affidavit uploaded with the tender form omitted the tender notice number and date. The tender conditions (Clause 8(B)(i) and 8(C)(i)) require online submission of documents proving technical qualification, with the manually signed affidavit appended as Form IV. Despite the omission, the fifth respondent’s technical and financial bids were opened and the contract awarded as the lowest bidder in May 2022. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing disqualification of the fifth respondent and, alternatively, preventing award to him and compelling the respondent authorities to award the contract to the petitioner. The respondents contend that Ext.P2 circular clarified that failure to sign all pages does not automatically invite disqualification, and that the lack of tender notice number and date in Annexure-IV is not a material defect. They further submit that tender evaluation and contract award are essentially commercial functions and must be free from equity-based interference absent mala fides, arbitrariness or irrationality. The court found no mala fides or irrationality, applied the general writ standard under Article 226, and dismissed the petition, emphasizing deference to commercial decision-making in tender processes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaClause 8(B)(i) of Ext.P1 tender noticeClause 8(C)(i) of Ext.P1 tender notice

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Equity and natural justice should stay at a distance in commercial functions
  • Interference by writ under Article 226 only when the procedure is tainted by mala fides, arbitrariness or irrationality

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that Clause 8(B)(i) requires online submission of documents proving technical qualification and Clause 8(C)(i) mandates uploading of scanned copies including a manually signed Form-IV affidavit. The omission to enter the tender notice number and date in Annexure-IV is asserted as a defect that should have led to disqualification at the prequalification stage. Ext.P2 clarifications do not cure the defect since the issue pertains to the affidavit itself. The petitioner contends that, given the alleged defect, the fifth respondent’s bid should have been rejected, and the contract should be awarded to the petitioner. The petition seeks mandamus to disqualify the fifth respondent and to direct award to the petitioner. Jurisdiction under Article 226 should act to ensure fair play where material irregularities exist.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents rely on Ext.P2 clarifications that signing all pages of the tender form is sufficient and that absence of tender number/date in Annexure-IV is not a material defect. They emphasize that tender evaluation and award are essentially commercial functions and should not be impeded absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or irrationality. They cite Candela Engineering Corporation v. Corporation of Thrissur to argue that equity and natural justice should not unnecessarily govern commercial processes. The court’s remit is limited to constitutional scrutiny under Article 226, and the absence of qualifying malafides or irrationality justifies a dismissal of the petition.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Candela Engineering Corporation v. Corporation of Thrissur and Others2021 (2) KLT 222Mentioned OnlyCited by respondents to support the proposition that tender evaluation and award are essentially commercial functions; the judgment itself does not overrule or distinguish this precedent and does not rely on it as controlling authority.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aji Baker v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 13352 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** AJI BAKER, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.ABOOBAKER, TC 1/3200, KUDLIL, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. BY ADVS. M.R.ANISON V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD) P.A.RINUSA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 019. 3 THE NFSA MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 019. 4 THE DEPOT MAANGER, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., PUNALUR P.O., PIN-691 305. 5 ANIL KUMAR.V., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PARANKIMAVILA VEEDU, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 534. BY ADV SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO **OTHER PRESENT:** W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 2 0 GP RIYAL DEVASSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2022, THE COURT ON 15/11/2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 3 ## **V.G.ARUN (J) ---------------------W.P.(C) No. 13352 of 2022 -----------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of November, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner had participated in the e-tender conducted by the second respondent for the work-lifting, transportation, handling and delivery of ration articles from source godowns to destination godowns in Punalur Taluk. As per Clause 8(C)(i) of Ext.P1 tender notice, the technical bid should contain scanned copies of the tender form signed manually and other document mentioned therein. One of the documents to be uploaded along with the manually signed tender form is the manually signed affidavit prepared in Annexure-IV format appended to the tender notice. According to the petitioner, the affidavit in Form-iv uploaded by the fifth respondent was defective, inasmuch as the space for entering the e-tender notice number and date were left blank. As such, the fifth respondent's bid ought to have been rejected at the prequalification stage. But, to the petitioner’s dismay, the fifth respondent’s technical bid and financial bids were opened and the W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 4 contract was awarded also to the fifth respondent, as he turned out to be the lowest bidder. Aggrieved this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs; a). to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction directing respondents to disqualify the 5[th] respondent to participate in the tender proceedings pursuant to tender notice bearing No. No.NFSA541937/2021 dated 02/02/2021 issued by the 2[nd] respondent in respect of Punalur Taluk, in Kollam District; (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondents 2 to 4, not to award the work mentioned in tender notice bearing No.NFSA5-41937/2021 dated 02/02/2022 issued by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation to the 5[th] respondent, in respect of Punalur Taluk in Kollam District based on the defective Annexure iv affidavit uploaded by the 5[th] respondent (ONLINE); c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the official respondents to award the work mentioned in tender notice bearing No.NFSA5-41937/2021 dated 01/02/2022 issued by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, in Punalur Taluk in Kollam District to the petitioner; 2. Advocate V.P.Seemathini, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that, as per Clause 8(B)(i), the documents to prove bidder's technical qualification are to be submitted online and failure to submit the documents attracts disqualification. Clause 8(C)(i) makes uploading of the scanned copies of documents enumerated there under, mandatory. The duly signed(manually) affidavit in the Form-IV should be uploaded with the tender form. Pertinently, the allegation that the fifth W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 5 respondent had omitted to enter the tender notice number and date is not controverted. Later, Ext.P2 was issued, clarifying that, failure to sign the Annexures appended to the tender form will not result in disqualification, if the tender form is signed on all pages. According to the Senior Counsel, the clarification is of no avail as far as the fifth respondent is concerned, since his omission was not in signing the affidavit appended to the tender form, but in not entering the tender notification number and date. 3. Adv.Molly Jacob, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Corporation, submitted that as per Ext P2 it was clarified that only bids uploaded without signing all pages of the tender form needs to be rejected. The annexures appended to the tender form are required to be signed only to ensure that the tenderer has gone through the document and was thus aware about the requisite details. It is submitted that the tender notice number and its date in Annexure-IV are not informations to be provided by the tenderers. As such, failure to incorporate those details in the affidavit is not a material defect, calling for rejection of the fifth respondent's bid at the technical bid evaluation stage. It is pointed out that in the writ petition filed by another bidder, who had failed to sign Annexure IV affidavit before uploading, W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 6 resulting in his bid being rejected by the technical evaluation committee, this court had interfered and ordered to open the petitioner's financial bid. In the light of the said direction, the Technical Evaluation Committee felt it proper to consider the fifth respondent's tender, despite his omission to enter the tender notice number and date. It is submitted that, being the lowest tenderer, the contract for transportation of ration articles within Punalur Taluk was awarded to the fifth respondent in May 2022. Reliance is placed on the decision in _Candela Engineering Corporation v. Corporation of Thrissur and Others_ (2021 (2) KLT 222) to contend that evaluation of tenders and awarding of contracts being essentially commercial functions, principles of equity and natural justice should stay at a distance. Finally it is contended that even the petitioner has no case that acceptance of the fifth respondent's bid and the award of contract to him is actuated by mala fides. 4. Even according to the petitioner, the only defect with respect to the fifth respondent's bid is his omission to enter the tender notification number and date in the affidavit submitted along with the tender form. A perusal of the Form shows that, in the affidavit, the deponent has to state the number and date of the e- tender based on which the tender is being submitted. The body of the affidavit contains affirmations like, the applicant having W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 7 understood the terms and conditions of the tender, never being blacklisted or convicted, having no connection with the licence holder of any fair price shop, etc. The applicant has to affirm the earlier statements and affix his signature at the bottom of the affidavit. Being so, there is merit in the contention that omission to enter the number and date of the tender notification is not a material fact justifying rejection of the tender. More so, since even the requirement of signing the affidavit is relaxed by Ext.P2 clarification. 5. There is also substantial merit in the contention that it is the prerogative of the employer to accept or reject the bid. It is settled law that unless the award of contract shall not be interfered with unless the procedure is tainted by mala fides, arbitrariness or irrationality. In the instant case, there is no allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness and there is no reason for the acceptance of the fifth respondent’s tender to be so irrational an action that it warrants interference under Article 226. For the aforementioned reasons the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN** dpk **JUDGE** W.P.(C) No.13352 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13352/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE NO.NFSA 5 41937/2021 DATED 02.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.NFSA 8852/22 DATYED 15.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE NFSA MANAGER.