MURALI V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/1844/2014

AI Insights

The petitioner, Murali, challenged a tender condition requiring five years of experience for participating in a tender for parcel handling services at Railway Stations, issued by the Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division. The petitioner argued that the condition was unreasonable and not uniformly applied, as similar tenders in the Palakkad Division did not have such a stipulation. The Railway's counsel clarified that the experience need not be continuous and could be from similar fields outside of cargo handling specifically within the Railways. The court upheld the tender condition, emphasizing the discretion of the tender issuer in setting terms and rejecting the petitioner's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 740842 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P NAIR; C S DIAS
• Assessee Lawyers: G SREEKUMAR
• Keywords: Experience Requirement; Tender Notice; Parcel handling service; Southern Railway; Trivandrum Division

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).NO. 1844 OF 2014 (E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MURALI, AGED 52, S/O. KUTTIKRISHNAN, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 227. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 2. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI- 400 001. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,A.S.G OF INDIA, SRI.C.S.DIAS, S.C, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C).NO.1844/2014-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY DATED NIL. P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM DATED NIL. P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL STATION OFFICE DATED 3-10-2013. P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATION MANAGER'S OFFICE, THRISSUR DATED 10-3-09. P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE FURTHER CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 4-1-09 BY THE STATION MANAGER'S OFFICE, THRISSUR. P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATION MANAGER'S OFFICE, THRISSUR DATED 17-3-2010. P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING HANDLING CONTRACTS PROMULGATED BY THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY DATED NIL. P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FLOATED BY THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY DATED 1-10-2013 IN THE PALAKAD DIVISION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.1844 OF 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2014. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the condition stipulated in Ext.P1 tender notice, insisting 'five' years' experience for participating in the tender for 'parcel handling service' in the Railway Stations. Ext.P1 tender notice was issued by the concerned authority of the Trivandrum Division of the Southern Railway, inviting applications from the persons, who are desirous of participating in the bid and who are duly qualified in terms with the tender conditions. 2. As per the said tender notice, sealed tenders were invited from persons having five years' previous experience in cargo handling/ similar field. It is also stipulated as per Clause 1(g) of Ext.P1 tender notice that, proof of previous experience on regular contracts for the last five years as per clause No.19(c) of the Special condition shall be attached. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner has participated in the bid by submitting the tender, there is an attempt to oust the petitioner from the field, stating W.P.C.No.1844 OF 2014 2 that the five years' experience has to be continuous, which is not at all contemplated or is logical in any manner. There is also case for the petitioner that, there is no such stipulation with regard to the experience in the Palakkad Division or elsewhere. The learned counsel further submits that, stipulation of such a condition in the tender notice is without any authority and no such sanction has been given by the Advisory Board or such other higher authorities, with regard to the course and events to be followed under such circumstances. 4. On going through the pleadings and proceedings, it is seen that the stipulation in Ext.P1 tender notice only with regard to the experience of 'five' years; which does not stipulate that it should be continuous. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railway submits that, the ideal understanding of the petitioner is wrong and misconceived and that the Railway has not insisted that the five years' experience shall be a continuous one. When the petitioner contends that the petitioner is having more than seven years of experience, it need not be continuous and it is open for the petitioner to have produced the relevant materials before the W.P.C.No.1844 OF 2014 3 authority concerned. It is also pointed out that, such experience need not be restricted to the Cargo Handling Service in the Railways itself, and that it could be in respect of operations in other similar fields as well, and that the Railway does not have any objection with regard to such certificates, if produced so as to analyse the credentials of the participants. This being the position, there is absolutely no basis for the contention raised by the petitioner that the respondents are insisting to have continuous experience of five years. 6. With regard to the stipulation of experience as stated in Ext.P1, it is always for the Awarder of the work, to stipulate appropriate terms, while floating the tender and it is not for the participants to dictate terms to the Awarder. 7. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there is no power or authority to the concerned Officer, who has issued Ext.P1 tender notice, the learned Standing Counsel submits that, authority stands vested with sufficient powers in this regard, by virtue of the 'Schedule of Powers' issued and notified by the competent authority. The learned counsel also points out that the petitioner has W.P.C.No.1844 OF 2014 4 participated in the bid, which was opened on 21.10.2013, and as a matter of fact, eighty tenders have been received by the Railways from 38 persons, in respect of 10 Railway Stations coming under the Trivandrum Division. It was only on coming across the fact that, several persons have come to the arena, that the petitioner has chosen to challenge the clause stipulating experience, apprehending adverse results. The writ petition was filed only after opening the tender on 16.01.2014 and it is stated that the proceedings are still to be finalised. 8. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways that the certificates produced by all the participants including the petitioner will be considered, scrutinized and will be acted upon, before finalisation of the tender is recorded. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp "