ABDUL HAKEEM Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
LAWS(KER)-2017-8-414
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on August 07,2017

ABDUL HAKEEM Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.B.SURESH KUMAR,J. - (1.) The petitioner is a registered contractor. Ext.P1 is an invitation of bids made by the first respondent for execution of a civil work. Though the petitioner submitted his bid in response to Ext.P1 invitation, he was not awarded the work as he was only the second lowest bidder. The second respondent was the lowest bidder and consequently, the work was awarded to him. The case of the petitioner is that only contractors, who have active registration as on the date of submission of the bid, are entitled to participate in the tender process in terms of Ext.P1 invitation. The last date for submission of the bid pursuant to Ext.P1 invitation was 1.4.2017. According to the petitioner, the second respondent who submitted the bid on 1.4.2017 was not holding active registration as on that date and that therefore, he was not entitled to participate in the tender process. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the first respondent to award the work to the petitioner in his capacity as the second lowest bidder.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. The essence of the contention of the second respondent is that he had valid registration till 31.3.2017; that he preferred an application on 30.3.2017 for renewal of the registration and it was while the said application was pending that he submitted the bid on 1.4.2017 and that in so far as the delay on the part of the competent authority in not granting the renewal sought by him is not attributable to him, there is no illegality in treating him as a person holding registration. It was also contended by the second respondent that on 25.4.2017, the Government have extended the validity of registration of all the contractors which expired on 31.3.2017 till 31.8.2017, in terms of Ext.R2(d) order. As such, at any rate, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he did not have registration as on 1.4.2017.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the second respondent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.