Faisal B.E. v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Others

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942 ## WA. No.340 OF 2021 [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 5-1-2021 IN WP(C) NO. 21347/2020(P)] ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: FAISAL B.E., AGED 44 YEARS MEHRIN MANZIL, KUTHIYATHODE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688533. BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: - 1 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, P.B.NO.2030, KADAVANTHRA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682020. - 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, P.B.NO.2030, KADAVANTHRA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682020. - 3 THE MANAGER (NATIONAL FOOD SAFETY ACT), KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, P.B.NO.2030, KADAVANTHRA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682020. 4 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. (SUPPLYCO), OPP.YATHRI NIVAS, NEAR GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, PRS ROAD, THAIKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. - 5 ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. (SUPPLYCO), CHENGANNUR P.O., KOLLAM-691001. - 6 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHENGANNUR TALUK, CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-689121. W.A.340/2021 2 |7|JOHNS MATHEW,| |---|---| ||KOCHUKATTIL COTTAGE, ENNAKKAD, CHENGANNUR P.O.,| ||ALAPPUZHA-689624.| |8|ROSHAN R.VARGHESE,| ||CHALAI VADAKATHIL, MUTTOM, MUTTOM P.O.,| ||ALAPPUZHA-690511.| ||R1 TO R5 BY SMT. MOLLY JACOB, SC, SUPPLYCO| ||R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEK CHAND| THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.340/2021 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 16[th] day of February, 2021 ## S. Manikumar, CJ Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 5.1.2021 in W.P.(C) No.21347 of 2020, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court declined to interfere with the action of the respondents or to issue any direction, in favour of the writ petitioner, and dismissed the writ petition, ordering thus: “9. The complaint of the petitioner is that re-tender would affect his interest. But the Corporation is expected to protect public interest. It is for the Tender Inviting Authority to decide how they should proceed with the tender in public interest. 10. In the case of the petitioner, not even a selection notice was issued. The only thing is that he became the only bidder who was found qualified because the respondents 7 and 8 got disqualified. On that reason, it cannot be said that the petitioner is conferred with any right to get the work awarded in his favour. The fact that the respondents adopted a different procedure last year, without going for a fresh tender, cannot, in any way, support the case of the petitioner and will not stand in their way, in taking a decision for proceeding for a fresh tender. The petitioner does not have any right to insist that respondent shall continue to adopt the very same procedure. Moreover, there is not even an allegation of malafide and much less any such plea is available to substantiate the same.” W.A.340/2021 4 2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are, being aggrieved by the proceedings of respondents 1 to 3, viz., Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Ernakulam; the General Manager, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.; and its Manager, to re-tender the work notified in Exhibits-P1 and P1(a) notifications dated 15.07.2020 and 30.07.2020 respectively, for transportation of ration articles for Chengannur Taluk, writ petitioner/appellant has filed W.P.(C) No.21347 of 2020 seeking for a direction to the respondents to process his bid, and to award him, transportation works in the abovesaid taluk. 3. Appellant has stated that he is a transporting contractor and that, he had participated in the tender process for transportation contracts for various taluks in Kollam and Alappuzha districts. Appellant has claimed that he has ample experience in transporting contracts and also has all other required qualifications as per the tender conditions. According to him, as far as State of Kerala is concerned, public distribution system of rationed articles are governed by the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, an order, promulgated under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. Appellant has further stated that Parliament has promulgated National Food Security Act, 2013 w.e.f. 10.09.2013. The purport of the said statute is to abolish public distribution through private W.A.340/2021 5 wholesale distribution agencies. Referring to the preamble of the National Food Security Act, 2013, appellant has stated that it is an Act to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people, to live a life with dignity and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto; that the essential object of the Act is to ensure adequate and full-fledged supply of ration articles to the deserving people through fair price shops, i.e. supply of ration articles, through the State agencies and Civil Supplies Corporation. 5. Appellant has further stated that consequent to the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as N.F.S.A), the role of wholesale distributors were totally displaced and Civil Supplies Corporation has been authorized to perform the functions relating to distribution of ration articles to retail dealers (fair price shops). Since Civil Supplies Corporation did not have sufficient mechanism and manpower to undertake the task of lifting of ration articles from the FCI depots/CMR mills to their godowns, and to effect, in-turn distribution to the fair price shops (retail distributors), they have decided to entrust the task of distribution by engaging transporting contractors. 6. It is the case of the appellant that the General Manager, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 2[nd] respondent, for the ensuing period, has issued a tender notification on 15.7.2020 W.A.340/2021 6 (Exhibit-P1), inviting tenders from eligible contractors, for being appointed as transporting contractors, to undertake the task of: - (i) transportation of food articles from concerned FCI depots to the godowns of the Civil Supplies Corporation, - (ii) lifting and transportation of food grains from CMR mills to Supply-co godowns, and - (iii) further transportation of ration articles from the Supplyco godowns to the depots of the fair price shops. 7. Appellant has further stated that in short, there are three tasks to be undertaken by the successful bidder, a transporting contractor, selected in a tender process, which can be undertaken by participating in separate works or for whole. According to the appellant, applicants can participate in the bid for different taluks in the State. 8. Appellant has contended that though the notification is dated 15.7.2020, it was publicized or the intending bidders knew about the notification only on 27.7.2020, on which date, it was published in the newspapers, and that the aspirants could see and download the tender notice from the E-portal of the Supply-co. 9. It is also stated that there are innumerable data to be gathered by the aspiring participants to upload in the E-portal, including to arrange the requisite fund and facilities for the same. According to the appellant, the altered and additional stipulation has been introduced only to help the prominent goods carriage operators/ transporting contractors, on account of their influence to eliminate W.A.340/2021 7 medium goods carriage/ transporting contractors. 10. According to the appellant, subsequently, a corrigendum notification was issued on 30.07.2020 [Exhibit P1(a)]. Appellant has further stated that pursuant to Exhibits-P1 and P1(a) notifications inviting tenders, he had submitted his bid for obtaining transportation contracts for Chengannur Taluk. 11. Mr. Johns Mathew, Kochukattil Cottage, Ennakkad, Alappuzha, and Mr. Roshan R. Varghese, Chalai Vadakathil, Muttom, Alappuzha, respondents 7 and 8 respectively, had also submitted their bids for the very same taluk, but the bid submitted by them were rejected, as they were found disqualified, on the grounds stated in Exhibit-P2 remarks. Therefore, according to the appellant, he became the sole qualified bidder. 12. According to the appellant, the work is to be awarded to him, without resorting to fresh notice inviting tender. In support of his claim, he has contended that as per Exhibits-P4 and P4(a) proceedings, the respondents had in identical circumstances awarded the work to the only qualified tenderer in the previous year in Chengannur, Mavelikkara, and Kuttanad. There is no reason to adopt a different course of action this year deviating from the action taken by the respondents in Exhibits-P4 and P4(a). 13. Before the writ court, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., respondent No.1, has filed a counter affidavit, W.A.340/2021 8 wherein, the Corporation has contended that Government of India have notified National Food Security Act (NFSA) on 10/9/2013, with the object of providing food and nutritional security to the people of the nation, in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of food with affordable price to the citizens of the nation. 14. Government of Kerala, as per GO(MS) No.15/16/F&CSD dated 3/10/2016 appointed Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation as the nodal agency, for implementing NFSA, in the State, for logistics and doorstep delivery of ration articles. For executing the work of lifting, transportation, and delivery of ration articles, at the doorsteps of Fair Price Shops, for distribution to the public, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 1[st] respondent, for the first time, issued a tender notice dated 12-05-2017 for appointment of transporting contractors. As the contract was only for one year, tender notice dated 31/8/2018 was issued, and on expiry of the time of the contract executed by the successful tenderer, pursuant to the tender notice dated 31-08-2018, fresh tender was invited, as per Exhibit P1 dated 15-07-2020, and subsequently, Exhibit P1(a) corrigendum was published, revising the stipulation to own two vehicles by the tenderer in Exhibit P1 as four heavy goods vehicles, considering the past adverse experience faced by the Corporation in the lifting and transportation of ration articles, within the time limit prescribed by W.A.340/2021 9 Government of India. 15. Inspite of submitting consent and undertaking from the registered owners, transporting contractors were not able to furnish the details of the vehicles, when lifting, as per the allotment to be effected. This has affected the timely lifting of ration articles and delivery to the Fair Price Shops for distribution. The 1[st] respondent is of the firm view that if the heavy vehicle owners participate in the tender, the above contingency would not arise. There is also a chance of decrease in the rates, as the transporting contractors, who owned vehicles, need not pay hire charges. Exhibit P1(a) corrigendum was issued, realising that 4 heavy goods vehicles are required for the smooth transportation of ration articles, considering the volume of ration articles, to be lifted and transported, within the time limit so as to enable timely distribution of ration articles to the public. 16. It was further contended that the bitter experience the Corporation faced since 2017, in the timely lifting and effecting doorstep delivery of ration articles, to the Fair Price Shops, for distribution to the public, prompted the 1[st] respondent, to modify the tender conditions with regard to transportation in Exhibit-P1. 17. The amendment, raising the number of vehicles to be owned by the tenderer as four, has been effected, as per Exhibit P1(a) corrigendum, as it was felt necessary for the timely lifting and distribution of ration articles. Therefore, it is contended by the W.A.340/2021 10 Corporation that there is no merit in the allegation raised by the petitioner, in para 7 of the statement of facts filed in support of the writ petition, that the altered and additional stipulation has been introduced only to help big and prominent goods carriage operators/transporting contractors on account of their influence to eliminate medium goods carriage/transporting contractors. 18. It was further contended by the Corporation that, in order to prevent cartel formation among the tenderers, and the situation of Ll, withdrawing from the tender giving room for L2, to get the work causing financial burden to 1[st] respondent, in Exhibit P1 tender notice, EMD was enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, and it was also stipulated in Clause 18 of Exhibit P1 that, if Ll bidder, in any category of work, unilaterally resiles from the bid, bids for other categories of work in any other taluks would also not be considered, and the entire EMD remitted by him will be forfeited. 19. It was further contended by the Corporation that in view of the above stipulation, it appears that defective tenders were deliberately submitted for enabling a single tenderer to get the work, which is all the more clear from the nature of defects in the technical bid submitted by respondents 7 and 8. The fact that the technical bid submitted by respondents 7 & 8 were rejected, does not confer any indefeasible right to the petitioner, to get the work awarded in his favour, for the reason that he was the only successful tenderer. W.A.340/2021 11 20. It was further contended that there is no concluded contract till the bid was accepted and by merely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired any vested right. In fact, in para II Clause (5) of ExhibitP1, it has been stipulated that Supply-Co reserves the right to accept or reject any or all the tenders, without assigning any reason whatsoever and re-tender the work by part or full. The writ petitioner had participated in the tender knowing fully well about the terms and conditions in Exhibit P1 tender notice and Exhibit P1(a) corrigendum. Therefore, he cannot stand in the way of the 1[st] respondent in retendering the work. As a matter of fact, the very purpose of conducting tender is defeated, if the work is awarded to a single tenderer. Hence, it is absolutely necessary in public interest, to go for re-tender, to get more competitive rates. Without exploring the possibility of getting more competitive rates, it is not desirable to entertain a single bidder, at the first instance, by awarding work to the single tenderer, as the competition is totally eliminated and so the purpose of conducting tender is defeated. Therefore, the work cannot be awarded to the writ petitioner, who has become a single tenderer, on the basis that the technical bids submitted by the other tenderers, are invalid. 21. It was further contended that the 1[st] respondent has got every right to go for re-tender, to get competitive rates, which is absolutely necessary in public interest. The reason stated by the W.A.340/2021 12 petitioner against the move for re-tender alleged is not sustainable. In this context, the 1[st] respondent has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Air India Ltd v. Cochin International Airport Ltd** ., [(2000) 2 SCC 617], to contend that even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. It was also contended that the court should always keep in mind the larger public interest, in order to decide whether, its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere. In the light of the above, the petitioner cannot insist that the work should be awarded to him for the mere reason that he happened to be a single tenderer, without going for re-tendering, to get competitive rates. 22. In the instant tender, submitted pursuant to Exhibit-P1, there are many tenderers, who were technically disqualified on account of which, in many taluks, there happened to be a single tenderer. Hence, to protect public interest, it has been decided to go for re-tender. There is no illegality or irregularity in it. 23. It was further contended that during 2018, there were two valid tenders, each for Chengannur, Mavelikkara, and Kuttanad taluks, and they were technically qualified. But thereafter, the L1 W.A.340/2021 13 bidder withdrew from the financial bid evaluation. Then, there happened to be a single tenderer. Supply-co forfeited the EMD furnished by L1 bidder during 2018. The situation is not identical as put forth by petitioner. In the case on hand, the petitioner became A single tenderer, since the other bidders were not technically qualified. Hence, Supply-co has no option other than to go for re-tender. 24. It was finally contended that THE earnest money has been enhanced in Exhibit-P1 and forfeiture of the earnest money in the event of L1 withdrawing from the tender was incorporated in the terms and conditions of the tender, with the specific objective of avoiding cartel formation and unilateral withdrawal from the tender by L1. So, if a single tenderer is awarded the work for the reason that others were not technically qualified would create a bad precedent and it would also prompt the tenderes in submitting defective tenderers with the oblique motive of giving room for a single tenderer to become successful and get the work awarded in his favour. For the foregoing reasons, the 1[st] respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 25. After considering the submissions advanced and the decisions cited, writ court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition, as extracted above. 26. Being aggrieved, instant appeal is filed on the following grounds: W.A.340/2021 14 - A. The reasoning of the learned single Judge, in the impugned judgment, that it is the prerogative of the tendering authority to decide on the selection process, including their right to proceed for fresh tender, is not correct. The official respondents ought to have considered his claim, possessed his tender further, and should have awarded the transporting contracts in Chengannur taluk. - B. Writ court ought not to have sustained the proposal of respondents 1 to 3, to cancel the tender process hitherto pursued, and to conduct a fresh bid to award the transporting contracts. - C. Writ court should not have sustained the stand and proposal of the official respondents in their attempt to cancel the bid and to conduct fresh tender in the matter citing the reason of public interest. In fact, public interest will only be adversely affected by the impugned move of the official respondents. - D. Writ court should have found that the move for fresh tender being attempted by respondents 1 to 3 is improper and unwarranted, in as much as, such a move will only destroy the very purpose of awarding works by inviting tenders. If the respondents 1 to 3 attempted to conduct a fresh tender, a fair bid process will not happen, in as much as, the price quoted for the very adjacent Taluk (Mavelikkara) became known to the transporting contractors. - E. Presently, for this year, the appellant himself had come up as the successful bidder for Mavelikkara taluk and the price quote has become open, and therefore, there cannot be any fair bid for the neighbouring taluk - W.A.340/2021 15 Chengannur, where the price bid range cannot vary, if a fresh tender is invited. - F. Respondents 1 to 3 themselves have awarded the work to a single bidder, survived during price bid in Chengannur, Mavelikkara and Kuttanad taluks, for the previous year, and therefore, the same yardstick should have been adopted in the instant situation. Writ court should not have lightly brushed aside this aspect of the matter. 27. Based on the above grounds, learned counsel for the appellant made submissions. 28. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 29. G.O.(P) No.324/2015/Fin. dated 30.07.2015, issued by the Finance (IND & PW-B) Department, detailing the guidelines for acceptance of single tender/bids for public works, reads thus: “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ## Abstract Execution of public works-Acceptance of single bid - detailed guidelines -Issued. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINANCE (IND & PW-B) DEPARTMENT G.O(P).No.324/2015/Fin Dated, Thiruvananthapuram 30.07.2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Read: 1. G.O (P) No.36/2013/PWD dated 12.04.2013. 2. Circular No.16846/E2/12/PWD dated 01.08.2012. 3. G.O(Ms) No.13/2015/ITD dated 12/05/2015. ## **ORDER** In Government Orders referred to above, orders were issued adopting CPWD and MORTH guidelines for preparation of estimates of public works. In the Circular second cited, W.A.340/2021 16 detailed guidelines have been issued to process proposals being considered by Government Tender Committee. 2. The CVC guidelines prescribe that single tenders shall not normally be accepted for the first time, anrd the same can be considered for acceptance only in emergent situations that' too subject to recording of detailed justifications in support of acceptance with the approval of competent authority. It has been observed that some of the Government departments/PSUS are accepting single tenders without observing prescribed procedures. 3. The cannons of financial propriety and public policy demand that single tender shall not be accepted first time as no price discovery happens due to absence of competition. Furthermore, defective tender conditions or inadequate publicity can also result in single tenders. A common reason for single tender might be the restrictive specifications which do not permit multiple vendors to participate. Therefore, all Government Departments/Agencies/PSUS are hereby directed to ensure that tenders floated by them shall not contain any restrictive specifications. They shall also ensure that adequate publicity is given for all public procurements. 4. In order to streamline the procedure on acceptance of single tender/bids for public works, the following guidelines are issued with immediate effect: (a) Definition of single tender: The terms "tender" and "bid" are used interchangeably in the context of public procurement. Consequent to invitation of tenders, if only one bid is received or only one bid is found eligible after technical evaluation, such a bid shall be termed as a single tender/bid. ## (b) Opening of single bids: i) If a single bid is received during the first invitation, authority inviting the bid shall not open the bid. The authority may either opt to re-tender the work or extend the last date for acceptance by 15 working days to elicit response of other prospective bidders. The last date for acceptance of the bid will be automatically extended by 15 working days by default if single W.A.340/2021 17 response is received, unless specified otherwise in advance by the tender inviting authority. ii) If any response(s) is/are received during the extended period then, the bids may be evaluated taking the earlier bid and subsequent bids. iii) However, if no bid is received during the extended time, then re-tender shall be resorted to. However, in doing so, the single bid received earlier shall not be opened. iv) NIC shall make necessary changes. in the e-tender portal to facilitate the above processes. ## Acceptance of single bid below estimate rate: Since different Government Departments/Agencies/PSUS do not follow uniform pattern in the preparation of estimates, a single bid received even below estimate rate need not reflect market price in the absence of competition. Hence, single bid at the estimate rate or below ER shall also not normally be accepted during the first invitation. ## (d) Second or subsequent invitation of tenders (Re-tendering): - i. Before re-tendering, the Tender Inviting Authority shall analyse the possible cause(s) for not receiving sufficient number of bids and thoroughly verify the tender conditions to rule out any restrictive clauses/conditions in the original tender document. - ii. The tender inviting authority should ensure that adequate publicity is given for re-tender and prospective bidders may be alerted through both e-mail and SMS. - iii. When re-tendering is done, the bid submission period may be cut short to ten working days. Single bid in a retender can be accepted keeping in view the CVC guidelines and instructions issued by Government from time to time. - iv. However, a single bid during re-tender shall be accepted only with the approval of Committee of Secretaries/ W.A.340/2021 18 Government Tender Committee or a Committee headed by the Head of the Department/Institution, with Finance Officer (or equivalent) and the Tender Inviting Authority as members, as per delegation of tender acceptance inforce. - v. The Committee, while taking final decision on such tenders/bids, must keep in mind the basic objective, which is to ensure fair and adequate competition for price discovery and efficient execution. 5. No single tender shall be accepted unless it is processed through the State's e-procurement portal. 6. All tenders for amounts of Rs.5 lakh and above shall be procured only through the electronic procurement system. 7. Any conflicting provisions contrary to the above, including those instructions issued by other Government departments/PSU5/Boards will not be valid from the date specified in this order. 8. The above guidelines will take effect from 1[st] August 2015 onwards. By Order of the Governor DR. K. M. ABRAHAM Additional Chief Secretary (Finance)” 30. The sole question that emerges for consideration is, as to whether the judgment of the learned single Judge requires interference. Learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions made across the bar, has arrived at the finding that the appellant has no right to agitate against re-tender ordered by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, respondent No.1, since retendering was done to protect public interest. Writ court also found W.A.340/2021 19 that it is for the Tender Inviting Authority to decide as to how they should proceed with the tender in public interest. That apart, writ court found that in the case of the appellant, not even a selection notice was issued and that the only aspect was that the appellant is the only bidder qualified, since respondents 7 & 8, the participants in the tender, became disqualified. Thus, writ court came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to any relief sought for. 31. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the bar. As we have pointed out above, Government of Kerala, Finance Department, have issued order dated 30.07.2015, whereby, the issue with respect to the acceptance of a single bid was considered. Single bid is defined in the said order to mean, a tender/bid received consequent to invitation of tenders and if only one bid is received or only one bid is found eligible after technical evaluation, such a bid shall be termed as a single tender/bid. 32. Parameters are fixed in the said Government order, as to how a single bid has to be considered. It is an admitted fact that even though three bids were received, appellant was the sole bidder qualified, since the other two bidders were found to be not qualified, in terms of the notification issued. 33. It is significant to note that having realised the situation and apparently of the fact that the Government order specified above would guide the field, no intimation was given to the appellant in W.A.340/2021 20 regard to the opening of the tender or accepting his tender, and thus, qualified to be selected. In effect, the appellant was not served with any order intimating that his bid was accepted, in accordance with the notification issued. 34. That apart, we are also in absolute agreement with the finding of the learned single Judge that the Tender Inviting Authority has to sanction bid processing and to decide how to carry on with the tender, in larger public interest. Merely because, a tender was submitted, no rights are accrued on the appellant, to get the work awarded in his favour. Appellant has no case that the tender submitted by him was cancelled or the re-tender was notified for any _mala fide_ reasons or vested interest. But, on the other hand, it could be deduced that the objective of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation is to re-tender the work notified and to identify whether more tenders are received, in order to process and evaluate the bid, for the better interest of the Corporation. 35. Further, by virtue of the Government order dated 30.07.2015, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, respondent No.1, had no option other than to re-tender the work, since the appellant became a single tenderer, and taking note of the imperatives contained in the said Government order. 36. Taking into account all the above factual and legal aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not made out W.A.340/2021 21 a case for interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.1.2021 in W.P.(C) No.21347/2020. Writ appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** Krj //TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO C.J.