High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-01-11Dismissed

Sasidharan P. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The court held there was no illegality in the award to the third respondent and declined to interfere with the university’s decision.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sasidharan P.

Respondents

The Cochin University of Science and Technology (represented by the Registrar)
The University Engineer, Engineering Department, Cochin University of Science and Technology
M/S Wellness Diet Pvt. Ltd.
The Registrar, Cochin University of Science and Technology
Additional Respondents 5 to 7: Mazin Ibrahim; Jishnu C.P; Kurien Biju

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Jishy P.S.
• Adv. K. Vinaya

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay (for R1, R2, R4)
• Adv. P.R. Jayasankar (for R3)
• Adv. Ameer.K.M.; Adv. M.J. Jesna; Adv. Rahmathullah.M; Adv. AISWARYA Ravikumar (for R5)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Sasidharan P., who has been running the canteen in the Cochin University of Science and Technology since 2016, approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to award the contract for running the canteen on the basis of Ext.P2 (tender notification dated 21.10.2019) and Ext.P3 (quotation submitted in the tender conducted on 7-11-2019). He claims to be the lowest tenderer satisfying all conditions of Ext.P2 and argues the decision to award the contract to the third respondent, Wellness Diet Pvt. Ltd., is illegal and arbitrary, made without discussion with him or other tenderers, and aimed at ousting him. The respondents counter that although the petitioner was the lowest bidder, the university encountered complaints about the petitioner’s performance; the petitioner was also a defaulter in dues. The canteen committee and a sub‑committee examined the matter; the sub‑committee concluded that the third respondent’s rates were reasonable, and a syndicate meeting approved the award (Ext.R1(e)); the university later noted arrears and directed the petitioner to vacate. The High Court emphasized its limited scope in tender matters, recognizing the special features of contracts in educational institutions and applying the judicial‑review principle fortified by Jagdish Mandal and Maa Binda Express Carrier. It dismissed the petition, finding no ground to interfere with the university’s decision. The petition is thus rejected and the award stands.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial review of contract awards in public institutions should consider the contract’s special features (educational context).
Non‑price factors and overall fairness may justify not following the lowest bid where there are issues of service quality or default.
Cited doctrines: Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa; Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr v. Northeast Frontier Railway.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends he was the lowest bidder under Ext.P2 and satisfies all conditions; having operated the canteen since 2016, he argues there was no justification to bypass him in favor of the third respondent. He emphasizes the financial investments made and the strain during the COVID-19 period, asserting that the university, a statutory authority, should award based on merit and lowest bid after due process and discussion. He asserts the lack of opportunity to address alleged issues before awarding the contract and prays for a direction to grant the contract to him on the Ext.P2/Ext.P3 basis.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that although the petitioner was the lowest bidder, the university faced persistent complaints about the petitioner’s management and found him a defaulter in dues. A sub-committee studied the tender and concluded the third respondent’s rates were reasonable; the syndicate approved the award, and the contract was executed with the third respondent. The university also cites dues arrears as a basis to dispense with the petitioner’s services. It argues that in educational institutions, judicial review should consider broader fairness and contract features rather than automatic extension to the lowest bidder.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa	2007 14 SCC 517	Positive	The judgment is cited in support of the court’s approach to judicial review in tender/contract decisions, indicating the lower court’s decision is consistent with established principles.
Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr v. Northeast Frontier Railway	2014 3SCC 760	Positive	The decision is cited as supportive authority for the court’s view on judicial scrutiny of tender awards in public contracts.

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 Sasidharan P. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.27375 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SASIDHARAN P., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. VELU, PANNIKKODAN HOUSE, MATHANGOTTUPURAM, WANDOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328** **BY ADVS. SMT.JISHY P.S. SMT.K.VINAYA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN, PIN-682 022** - **2 THE UNVIERSITY ENGINEER, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN, PIN-682 022** - **3 M/S. WELLNESS DIET PVT. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 27/1660-B, SIVAPURI ROAD, KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 014** - **4 THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN, PIN-682 022** - ADDL. **5 MAZIN IBRAHIM, S/o MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDULLAH, POONTHURUTHI HOUSE, AKAMPADAM, ERANHIMANGAD P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM-679 329** **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **2** > ADDL. **6 JISHNU C.P, SREEPADAM HOUSE, AREEKODE P.O. MALAPPURAM 676369** > ADDL. **7 KURIEN BIJU, S/o T.K.BIJU, MULAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, SNDP LANE, HMT COLONY 683 503 (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5-7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/01/2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021) R1-2, R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.JAYASANKAR R5 BY ADV. AMEER.K.M. R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.J.JESNA R5 BY ADV. SHRI.RAHMATHULLAH.M R5 BY ADV. SMT.AISWARYA RAVIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 11[th] day of January, 2021** The petitioner who claims to be the lowest bidder in tender proceedings to run a canteen in the 1[st] respondent-University is before this Court seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to award the contract based on Ext.P2 notification to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3 quotation. 2. The petitioner has been running the canteen in the 1[st] respondent-University since the year 2016. The respondents invited fresh tender notifications as per Ext.P2 dated 21.10.2019. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the lowest tenderer. The 3[rd] respondent was however selected and awarded the contract. The petitioner would submit that, this is highly illegal and **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **4** arbitrary. The University being a Statutory Authority should have gone by merits and should have awarded the tender to the lowest tenderer. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the lowest tenderer satisfying all conditions stipulated in the notification and has been running the canteen successfully from the year 2016 without any complaints from any quarters. The petitioner has invested huge amounts to run the canteen. Even during the covid lock-down period, petitioner has been maintaining the staff and canteen, which has caused considerable financial burden on the petitioner. 4. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 in awarding the contract to the 3[rd] respondent, without holding any discussion with the petitioner or any other tenderers is highly arbitrary. The action is motivated and is at the behest of certain persons who wanted to oust the **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **5** petitioner. 5. The respondents 1 and 4 filed a counter affidavit in the matter and resisted the writ petition. The respondents 1 and 4 stated that on 20.07.2019, the Syndicate of the University resolved to renew the agreement with the petitioner for 6 months and also resolved to re-tender the selection of contractor for running the canteen, as per Ext.R1(b). Four tenderers participated. The petitioner was the lowest tender. But the University had difficulty in accepting the tender of the petitioner even though the petitioner quoted the lowest rate for food items. The canteen committee expressed objection in awarding the contract to the petitioner as there were complaints about the functioning and maintenance of the canteen by the petitioner. The students representatives also invited attention to the problems faced by the students, using the canteen. **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **6** 6. As is evident from Ext.R1(c) the canteen committee came to the conclusion that a sub committee should be constituted to visit the canteen run by the tenderers for conducting a study. Accordingly the sub committee submitted a report. The canteen committee at its meeting held on 22.07.2020 considered the report of the sub committee. The canteen committee found that the rates for food items offered by the 3[rd] respondent were reasonable. Accordingly it was decided to award the contract to the 3[rd] respondent. 7. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the Syndicate meeting held on 07.05.2020 considered the matter and gave approval to the proposal. Consequently Ext.R1(e) agreement was entered into with the 3[rd] respondent. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 4 further submitted that the petitioner **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **7** was a defaulter in payment of dues to the University. Letters were sent to the petitioner directing to pay an amount of Rs.1,08,077/- as water and electricity charges due from December 2019. However the amount was not paid. The petitioner was directed to vacate the canteen and return key on 31.05.2020. That was also not done. The Standing Counsel further pointed out that as per the records maintained by the University a sum of Rs.1,98,015/- is due to the University from the petitioner as on 23.11.2015. It was in these circumstances that the University decided to dispense with the service of the petitioner and award the contract to the 3[rd] respondent. 9. The additional respondents 5 to 7 pointed out that the price quoted by the 3[rd] respondent is exorbitant and most of the students in the University would not be able to have their food due to the exorbitant price quoted by the 3[rd] respondent. This is a matter this Court should **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **8** considered while deciding the issue. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 4, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that power of judicial review in the matter of award of contract should be exercised by this Court taking note of the special features of the contract. In the present case, the award of contract is in respect of a canteen in an educational institution. The respondents 1 and 4 received complaints about the running of the canteen by the petitioner. 12. The petitioner was a defaulter to the University also. The petitioner has been functioning the canteen from the year 2016. The University found that the service provided by the petitioner are unsatisfactory. In such circumstances even though the petitioner is the lowest **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **9** tenderer, the University can opt alternative contractors for award of tender in view of the complaints raised against the petitioner. The judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in _**Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa** [2007 14 SCC 517]_ and _**Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr v. Northeast Frontier Railway** [2014 3SCC 760]_ would support the contentions of the respondents 1 and 4. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents 1 and 4. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** **SR** **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19-07-2016** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 21-10-2019** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION RATES SUBMITTED IN THE TENDER CONDUCTED ON 7-11-2019** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENR DATED 18-03-2020** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18630/2020 DATED 02-11-2020** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC 18630/2020 ALONG WITH DOCUEMNTS** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGISTRAR DATED 22-05-2020** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 06.08.2016** - **EXHIBIT R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 20.07.2019.** - **EXHIBIT R1 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CANTEEN COMMITTEE HELD ON 03.02.2020** **EXHIBIT R1 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 27.02.2020 OF THE MEETING OF THE** **WP(C).No.27375/2020(V)** **11** ## **CANTEEN COMMITTEE.** **EXHIBIT R1 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT EXECUTED ON 22.07.2020 BY M/S WELLNESS DIET PVT. LTD. WITH THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT R1 (F) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1 (G) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.05.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1 (H) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.05.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1 (I) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.10.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1 (J) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.01.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1 (K) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.UEU/ACCTS/1108/MAIN CANTEEN/2019/20 DATED 27.05.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1 (L) TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.No.CUSAT/UEU(ACCTS).A2/1660/2020 DATED 29.07.2020. EXHIBIT R1 (M) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.UEU/ACCTS./1108/MAIN DATED 23.11.2020 EXHIBIT R1 (N) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ENVELOP.**