IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

&

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

WP(C).No.21867 OF 2020(G)

PETITIONER:

ANIL KUMAR T.K

THOZHUTHINGATHADATHIL HOUSE,

PUTHENCRUZ P.O,

ERNAKULAM 682 308.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

SHRI.S.RAJMOHAN

SRI.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN

SMT.R.ANJALI

RESPONDENTS:

1 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,

GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,

GURUVARYUR-680 101

2 THE ADMINISTRATOR,

GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ,

GURUVAYUR-680 101.

3 THE COMMISSIONER,

GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 2

4 MANIKANDAN K,

CHANDRATHIL HOUSE,

TANK ROAD, ANGAMALY-683 572.

R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SC, GURUVAYUR

DEVASWOM BOARD

R3 BY SR.G.P.SRI.T.K.ANANDAKRISHNAN

R4 BY ADV. SRI.SHANKAR V.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 3

“C.R.”

JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

The petitioner who is a cultivator and supplier of hybrid

napier green grass responded to Ext.P1 tender notification issued by

the Guruvayur Devaswom, the first respondent on 1.6.2020 for its

supply as fodder for its cattle and elephants. In fact, he has been

supplying hybrid napier green grass to Guruvayur Devaswom since

2013. He deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards EMD and also

paid the required tender fees of Rs.2,800/-, enjoined under the tender

conditions as evinced by Exts.P2 and P3. No intimation regarding the

outcome of tender proceedings initiated under Ext.P1 was given to him.

So also it was not published. However, despite the expiry of the period

of contract the petitioner was required to continue to supply hybrid

napier green grass as per the requirements till 20.10.2020. On

24.8.2020 the 2

nd

respondent issued Ext.P4 re-tender notification

No.P3-3645/20 dated 24.8.2020 and the petitioner and the other

tenderers who responded to Ext.P1 and remitted the EMD and tender

fees were also permitted to participate in the re-tender without

depositing EMD. According to the petitioner, upon opening the tenders

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 4

received pursuant to Ext.P4 it was found that two out of the five

tenders were invalid and among the other tenderers his quote was the

lowest viz., Rs.4.55. The two others quoted Rs.4.90 and Rs.5/-,

per Kg. respectively. While the petitioner contends that he became the

lowest evaluated eligible tenderer (L1) in respect of the said tender

process, respondents 1 to 3 viz., Guruvayur Devaswom Board and its

Administrator and Commissioner would contend that he was only L2.

To consider the rival contentions it is only appropriate to refer to the

conditions in Ext.P4 tender notification. There cannot be any doubt

with respect to the position that going by Ext.P4 in order to be an

eligible tenderer the person concerned responding to the same, except

persons who had already responded to Ext.P1, should have deposited

an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards EMD and an amount of Rs.2,500/-

towards tender fees. In this context it is relevant to refer to the

following condition in Ext.P4:-

“IN THEGC OURGC FKEALNMC OPTNC FKLUC SB.AJC SKV&DY

MASTA,CDA 1E5A2UCO0PD N/6T9.”

In the light of Ext.P4, tender of anyone who did not pay EMD would not

be accepted at any cost. Obviously, the person who, according to

Guruvayur Devaswom, became L1 had not remitted Rs.2,00,000/-

towards EMD as also did not pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards the

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 5

tender fees. When that be the position, in terms of Ext.P4 he cannot be

regarded as an eligible tenderer at all in respect of the process initiated

as per Ext.P4. When such a position is revealed from Ext.P4 itself and

when there is no contra-case for the Devaswom we do not find any

reason to uphold the stand of respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner

herein was only L2.

2. Now, we will refer to the case and grievance of the

petitioner. On 8.10.2020 he was contacted over phone from the office

of the Guruvayur Devaswom and was directed to appear before the

Managing Committee for negotiation in respect of the tender process

initiated under Ext.P4 on 9.10.2020. When he reported before the

Managing Committee the petitioner found there the other two bidders

(L2 and L3), who quoted higher rates, obviously, on being invited for

negotiation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Devaswom

authorities even after opening the sealed tenders received pursuant to

Ext.P4 called all the eligible tenderers for negotiation and according to

him, if at all any negotiation was to be done after opening the sealed

tenders it should have been only with him as he being L1. Ergo,

according to him, the very action on the part of the Devaswom in

calling the other tenderers for negotiation and negotiating with them is

illegal. To buttress his contention he relied on Exts.P5 and P6 which are

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 6

circulars issued by the Central Vigilance Commission respectively on

20.1.2010 and and 3.3.2007. As a matter of fact, Ext.P5 is a circular

issued by the Central Vigilance Commission clarifying Ext.P6 circular

dated 3.3.2007. The contention of the petitioner based on Exts.P5 and

P6 is to the effect that if at all negotiation was to be done after opening

the sealed tenders received pursuant to Ext.P4 re-tender notification

negotiation could have been made only with L1. He relied on Ext.P8

judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.29176 of 2016 and connected

cases as also Ext.P7 order dated 6.8.2018 in SSCR.No.8/2018 to

contend that this Court virtually made Exts.P5 and P6 circulars, referred

hereinbefore, issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, applicable to

the Travancore Devaswom Board and therefore, they are relevant in

appreciating these contentions. In fact, what was made applicable was

Ext.P5 circular dated 20.1.2010. Relying on the aforesaid decisions as

also the circulars it is contended by the petitioner that it was

impermissible to call L2 and L3 for negotiation and at any rate, the

further course adopted was also unacceptable. It is his precise case

that on that day he was asked to give a fresh quote in a separate white

paper and thereafter, to wait outside. According to him, the others

were also made to do the same. He was disheartened to find that by

resorting to such a process despite being L1 he was virtually ousted

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 7

from the scene and the tender was finalised in favour of L3. It is in the

said situation and circumstances that the petitioner filed the captioned

writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. Call for the records connected with the case;

2. Declare that the procedure adopted by respondents 1

and 2 in pursuance with Exhibit P4 tender

notification, ignoring Exhibits P5 and P6 guidelines

issued by CVC is arbitrary and illegal;

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to

award the tender to the L1 bidder, the petitioner.

4. Issue any such other writ order or direction as this

Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the

case;”

3. A counter affidavit was filed jointly by respondents 1 and

2 and a separate counter affidavit was filed by the party respondent

viz., the 4

th

respondent. Essentially, they attempted to justify the

method resorted to by the Devaswom in the matter of finalisation of the

tender floated as per Ext.P4. The contention of respondents 1 and 2 is

to the effect that the rates for supply of hybrid napier green grass

quoted by all the bidders who responded to Ext.P4 were unreasonably

higher and it is in the said circumstances, with a view to afford equal

opportunities to all the persons who responded to Ext.P4, that all of

them were invited for negotiation. It is also their contention that the

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 8

process of negotiation was conducted fairly and in a transparent

manner. Finding that in the prevailing circumstances the reasonable

price would be Rs.3.90 per kilogram and that it was acceptable only to

L3 that the tender was finalised in his favour. During the process of

negotiation the lowest quote of Rs.3.90 per Kg. was made by L3, it is

stated. In fact, he is respondent No.4 in this writ petition. It is the

contention of both the respondents 1 to 3 and the 4

th

respondent that

no illegality can be attributed to the process of negotiation undertaken

by the Devaswom authorities in the matter of finalisation of tender

floated as per Ext.P4, in the aforesaid manner.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Guruvayur Devaswom further submitted that in case the rate of Rs.3.90

per kilogram is acceptable to the petitioner the tender could be finalised

in his favour. Respondents 1 to 3 also took up a contention that after

participating in the tender without any demur the petitioner is not

justified in challenging the process of negotiation. The 4

th

respondent in

his counter affidavit virtually endorsed the contentions raised by

respondents 1 and 2. It is also stated in his counter affidavit that the

petitioner voluntarily participated in the re-tender process and he is

now raising grievances against the process of negotiation only after

coming to know that he is not the successful bidder. He would also

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 9

contend that a scanning of the process of negotiation would reveal that

there was virtually no violation of the norms in Exts.P5 and P6 circulars.

5. The respondents relied on various decisions of this Court

as also of the Hon'ble Apex Court, to refute the contention of the

petitioner that after opening of the sealed tenders there cannot be any

negotiation, including the decisions of the Apex Court in Raunaq

International Ltd. v. I.V.R.Construction Ltd. reported in AIR 1999

SC 393 and Food Corporation of India v. M/s.Kamdhenu Cattle

Feed Industries reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601. It is further

contended by them as hereunder:-

Doctrine of legitimate expectation was referred to by the

Apex Court in the decision in Food Corporation of India's case

reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601, and held that the State and all its

instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of

India in the matter of their action in contractual sphere as well.

Obviously, the Apex Court did not find fault with in conducting

negotiation with all tenderers after inviting sealed tenders and opening

them and giving them equal opportunity to revise their bids in respect

of the tender in question in that case, it is further contended. The Apex

Court did not find fault with in having negotiation after inviting sealed

tenders and opening the same. After going through the decision in

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 10

Raunaq International Ltd. Case reported in AIR 1999 SC 393 we

are of the considered view that the said decision is inapplicable to the

facts as also the question posed for consideration in this case.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2,

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3

rd

respondent and also

the learned counsel appearing for the 4

th

respondent.

7. We have already referred to the manner in which the

tender for supply of hybrid napier green grass was conducted by

respondents 1 and 2. The fact that in respect of the tender process

initiated under Ext.P1 the petitioner had deposited EMD and remitted

the tender fee, is not in dispute. The fact that he was not intimated

regarding the cancellation of the tender initiated under Ext.P1 is also

not in dispute. At the same time, the learned Standing Counsel for

respondents 1 and 2 would submit that tender process initiated under

Ext.P1 was not finalised as the amount quoted by all the tenderers

including the petitioner herein, was on the higher side and it was in the

said circumstances that decision was taken to re-tender the same. The

indisputable fact is that regarding the cancellation of the tender process

initiated under Ext.P1 and also the re-tender under Ext.P4 the

petitioner had not raised any objection and, that apart, it is a fact that

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 11

he had responded to Ext.P4 notification and had participated in the

tender process initiated thereunder. In the said circumstances, the

question to be considered is whether the finalisation of the tender

based on Ext.P4, in the aforesaid manner, warrants an interference at

the instance of the petitioner.

8. We have already upheld the contention of the petitioner

that he was L1 in respect of the re-tender process initiated under

Ext.P4. Though another person who responded to Ext.P4 quoted a rate

lesser than the one quoted by the petitioner, the admitted fact is that

he had not deposited the EMD and thereby, his tender became invalid

as per the conditions under Ext.P4 itself and naturally, he could not be

described as 'L1' in respect of the tender floated under Ext.P4. Having

upheld the contention of the petitioner that in respect of the tender

process initiated under Ext.P4 he was L1 it is only just and proper to

consider the other contentions raised by him. In this context, we have

no hesitation to hold that the mere factum of his participation in the

tender floated under Ext.P4 shall not be a reason to make him

disentitled to challenge the illegality, if any, in the matter of conduct

and finalisation of the tender.

9. As noticed earlier, even after opening the sealed tenders

received pursuant to Ext.P4, finding the tenders of the petitioner, the 4

th

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 12

respondent and one another person as valid and further finding that the

lowest quote among them was that of the petitioner all of them were

called for a negotiation by the Devaswom. We have also noted the

manner in which it was allegedly conducted. It is the said process of

negotiation adopted by the Devaswom Board that is assailed by the

petitioner on the ground of being illegal and it is to drive home the said

contention that he relied on Exts.P5 and P6 and Exts.P7 and P8

judgments.

10. From the facts expatiated hereinbefore, it is evident

that under Ext.P4 what was contemplated was submission of only

sealed tenders. The said fact is amply clear from the following recital in

Ext.P4:-

“OP4C SBWC DE(N)C o(J8C"7:Z4C ENT 1UC SKV3C2020-2022”

-68C-XTNMN N'LVTA18. ചടണറകൾ 04.09.2020 ന' പകൽ 3.00

pmES CO0PD N/6aU, ഓൺല3ൻ ചടണറകൾ ഉൾപചട 07.09.2020

ന' 3.30pm I8C7A8 AMCD &DA,SKCOA6N9GJN4Ca(/6a:A18.”

A bare perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that it does not contemplate

negotiation as part of the tender process and what was contemplated

was 'submission of tenders in sealed cover'. At the same time, as

noticed hereinbefore, to justify the action in conducting negotiation

subsequent to the opening of tenders the respondents relied on the

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 13

decision of the Apex Court rendered in Food Corporation of India's

case reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601 . The petitioner would contend

that what was actually done by the Devaswom authorities on

9.10.2020, after calling him as also the two tenderers who submitted

valid tenders as relates Ext.P4, was not a negotiation at all. According

to the petitioner, they were virtually made to give a fresh quote. He

drew our attention to the fact that it is the precise contention raised by

him in the writ petition. It is contended by him that he was made to

write the amount in a white paper and upon its handing over he was

asked to wait outside. There is no dispute regarding the fact that on

9.10.2020 all the three persons who submitted valid tenders, including

the petitioner, were asked to give the rate which they wanted to quote,

in separate papers. The question is whether it is a fresh quote or

whether the said action can be described as a 'negotiation' ? We will

consider this question a little later.

11. We will now refer to the question whether negotiation is

permissible after inviting sealed tenders and opening the same in tune

with the tender conditions ? The indisputable fact is that in Ext.P4

there is absolute absence of any clause contemplating or permitting

negotiation after opening of the sealed tenders. Therefore, it is evident

that after receiving sealed tenders and after opening the quotations all

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 14

the three eligible tenderers were called for negotiation and even after

calling them for negotiation they were only made to quote the rate in

respect of supply of hybrid napier green grass for the period 2020-

2022, in separate white papers. It is to be noted that respondents 1

and 2 even after receiving quotations pursuant to the original

notification viz., Ext.P1 had chosen only to go for re-tendering and at

the same time had not attempted to have 'negotiation' with the

tenderers who responded to Ext.P1. Normally, in such circumstances,

one would expect that if the quote of the petitioner, the 4

th

respondent

and the other person who responded to Ext.P4 was on the higher side

and in view of the fact that no provision for negotiation was made in

Ext.P4, respondents 1 and 2 would go for fresh tender. Admittedly,

that was not done. Certainly, there is no mandate that in such

circumstances, the respondents should have invited fresh tenders

through fresh notification. Obviously, all the three eligible tenderers

were called only for a 'negotiation' and then, they were asked to give

fresh rate, in separate papers. The question is whether the said

procedure adopted by respondents 1 and 2 could be given the seal of

approval by this Court in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Food Corporation of India's case reported in AIR 1993 SC

1601 ? To answer this question we are of the considered view that it is

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 15

profitable to refer to the circulars issued by the Central Vigilance

Commission, particularly Ext.P5; the Stores Purchase Manual of the

Government of India revised edition of 2013 issued as per G.O.

(P)No.3/2013/SPD and also PWD Manual.

12. Going by Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of

Current English (Seventh Edition) the word 'negotiate' means 'to try to

reach an agreement by formal discussion'. 'Negotiation' means formal

discussion between people who are trying to reach an agreement.

There is absolutely nothing on record nor any specific pleadings taken

by respondents 1 and 2 which would reveal that after calling the

petitioner and the other two eligible tenderers for negotiation, any kind

of formal discussion was made with them. In fact, what was done on

9.10.2020 was that they were asked to give the rate per kilogram which

they wanted to quote, in separate papers, in the matter of supply of

hybrid napier green grass. In such circumstances, even if it is taken

that negotiation is permissible even after opening sealed tenders, the

indisputable and undisputed fact is that no negotiation was actually

conducted and all the three tenderers were given opportunities to give

in writing the rate which they wanted to quote, in the aforesaid matter.

Thus, it is obvious that on 9.10.2020 they were only given fresh chance

for quoting fresh 'rate', in separate papers. How that can be styled as

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 16

negotiation? Taking into account the meaning of the expression

'negotiation' referred to hereinbefore as also the nature of the process

required to be undertaken to describe an act as 'negotiation' we have

no hesitation to hold that there occurred no negotiation on 9.10.2020.

13. Now, we will refer to the possibility for conducting a

negotiation even in a case where sealed tenders were invited. Under

normal circumstances, when sealed tenders are invited, after opening

the tenders on the date fixed therefor, the tender has to be finalised in

terms of the tender conditions. There is no scope for conducting a

further negotiation as that would be against the very intent and

purpose of inviting sealed tenders. In the case on hand, it is evident

that respondents 1 and 2, who have chosen to go for re-tender, upon

finding that all the tenderers who responded to Ext.P1 quoted higher

rates, have not adopted the same steps on the second occasion. In

other words, they seemed to have decided to have 'negotiation' with all

who submitted valid tenders without inviting fresh tenders. In this

context, the Central Vigilance Commission Circulars assume relevance.

We may hasten to add that though Ext.P6 circular was made applicable

to the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) by this Court as per order

dated 6.8.2018 in SSCR No.8/2018, the same has not so far been made

applicable to Guruvayoor Devaswom Board. At the same time, it is only

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 17

appropriate to refer to the intent and purport of issuance of Ext.P6

circular dated 3.3.2007 by the Central Vigilance Commission. It is

stated therein thus:-

“(i) As post tender negotiations could often be a source

of corruption, it is directed that there should be no post-

tender negotiations with L-1, except in certain

exceptional situations. Such exceptional situations would

include, procurement of proprietary items, items with

limited sources of supply and items where there is

suspicion of a cartel formation. The justification and

details of such negotiations should be duly recorded and

documented without any loss of time.”

Both Exts.P5 and P6 circulars contemplate only negotiation, with L-1.

This circular was directed to be followed by the TDB under Ext.P7 order

by this Court. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to the Stores

Purchase Manual Revised Edition 2013 issued as per G.O.(P)

No.3/2013/SPD dated 21.6.2013. Paragraph 9.46 and 9.47 under the

caption 'Reasonableness of Price' and 9.48 under the caption 'Price not

Reasonable' assume relevance in the contextual situation. They read

thus:-

9.46Before placing the contract on the lowest

evaluated eligible tender (L1), the purchase

department is to ensure that the price to be

paid is reasonable.

9.47The broad guidelines for judging the

reasonableness of price are as under:

(i) Last purchase price of same (or, in its

absence, similar) Stores

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 18

(ii) Current market price of same (or, in its

absence, similar) Stores

(iii) Price of raw materials, which go into

the production of the Stores

(iv) Receipt of competitive offers from

different sources

(v) Quantity involved

(vi) Terms of delivery

(vii) Period of delivery

(viii) Cost analysis (material cost,

production cost, over-heads, profit margin)

(NOTE: Price paid in an emergency purchase or

purchase price of Stores offered by a firm

through 'distress sale' (i.e. when the firm

clears its excess stock at throw away prices

to avoid further inventory carrying cost

etc.) are not accurate guidelines for future

use.

9.48Price not Reasonable- If L1's price is not

reasonable, then, in the first place, the

purchase department is to review its own

data & details to recheck whether the

reasonable price so arrived is correct or

not. If it is correct, the purchase

department may, strictly as an exception,

negotiate the price only with the lowest

evaluated eligible tender (L1) in an attempt

to bring down the same. If L1 reduces the

price to the desired level, contract may be

placed on it but if it does not agree, then

further action like re-tendering, etc., may

be decided by the purchase department

depending on the merits of the case.

True that under PWD Manual revised edition 2012, it is stated thus:-

“There shall be no negotiation after opening of tenders.”

In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Food Corporation of India v. M/s.Kamdhenu Cattle Feed

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 19

Industries reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601 , Exts.P5 and P6 circulars

as also paragraph 9.48 in Store Purchase Manual issued by the

Government of Kerala, we are of the view that there cannot be an

inviolable position that at no circumstances there can be a negotiation

with the tenderers. In that view of the matter we are of the considered

view that in respect of tenders of the nature involved in this case, if it is

found that the rates quoted by the tenderers are virtually on the higher

side, it cannot be compelled that the tender of the lowest among them

should be accepted instead of attempting for a negotiation and getting

the rate as acceptable, taking note of the reasonableness of price. At

the same time, we are of the view that after inviting the sealed tenders

and opening them in the presence of all the tenderers, even in a

situation where all quotes are on the higher side instead of conducting

a negotiation with L1 with a view to bring down the rate and that too,

to a reasonable one, or going for another re-tender, inviting all the

tenderers to quote rates afresh cannot be accepted as a negotiation

permissible under law. Virtually, in the case on hand, we will have to

say that there was no negotiation in the strict sense and instead of

sealed tender as contemplated under Ext.P4 what was ultimately done

was permitting the tenderers, after letting them known about the

lowest quote under the sealed tenders, to revise their quotes. To have

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 20

uniformity among various Devaswoms in Kerala and taking note of the

fact that the statute governing various affairs of various Devaswoms in

Kerala are virtually having almost uniform regulations or rules

pertaining to similar matters, we are of the considered view, especially

taking note of Ext.P7, that it will only be proper to follow Ext.P7 and

make the circular issued under the public procurement policy by the

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Government of India dated

20.01.2010, which was issued with an intent to avert chance of

corruption, applicable in the matter of tender processes, to all the

Devaswom Boards in Kerala. This is, all the more reasonable in view of

the specific provisions under Stores Purchase Manual issued by the

Government of Kerala, referred to hereinbefore. In such circumstances,

having found that in the case on hand, based on Ext.P4 notification, a

procedure was adopted which was not at all contemplated in Ext.P4 and

also taking note of the manner in which the tender was ultimately

finalised, we are of the view that the procedure adopted by

respondents 1 and 2 cannot be said to be valid in the eye of law. In

such circumstances, while leaving liberty to respondents 1 and 2 to go

for fresh tenders in the matter of procurement of hybrid napier green

grass for cattle and elephants of GDB, taking note of the

reasonableness of price, we direct that being L1, the petitioner shall be

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 21

permitted to continue to supply hybrid napier green grass till fresh deal

is successfully finalised, in accordance with law.

14. When we are about to part with the judgment, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the interim

orders passed by this Court, he has been continuing supply of hybrid

napier green grass for cattle and elephants of GDB at the rate which

was quoted in the year 2018 viz., @ Rs.3.20. It is submitted that he

continued to supply hybrid napier green grass at the aforesaid rate only

to honour the interim order and he should be permitted to approach

respondents 1 and 2 for getting higher rate for supply of the hybrid

napier green grass already supplied and to be supplied till a fresh

tender is finalised. We have no hesitation to hold the same as a

reasonable submission and therefore, liberty sought for, is granted. In

case the petitioner approaches respondents 1 and 2 with a

representation in that regard, it shall be considered appropriately and

the arrears based on the revised rate shall be paid to him. Since we

have already held that under the various Devaswoms in Kerala, in

respect of matters like this, where invitation of tender is required, it is

only feasible to have a uniform procedure and since that was made

applicable by this Court to TDB as per Ext.P7 judgment in SSCR 8/2018

and since we have made the same as also Stores Purchase Manual

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 22

revised edition 2013 issued as per G.O.(P)No.3/2013/SPD to the GDB

applicable to all Devaswom Boards in Kerala it is only proper to issue

copy of this judgment to the other Devaswoms viz., the Travancore

Devaswom Board, Cochin Devaswom Board, Malabar Devaswom Board

and Koodal Manikyam Devaswom to adopt a procedure in tune with

Ext.P7 order recognising the circular issued by the Central Vigilance

Commission as also the procedures contemplated under the Stores

Purchase Manual, in tune with this judgment. In such circumstances,

issue copies of this judgment to the Commissioners of the aforesaid

Devaswoms.

The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

Judge

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

Judge

TKS/spc

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 23

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE NO. P3

3645/2020 DATED 01.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.06.2020

ISSUED BY GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ACCEPTING THE

DEPOSIT OF EMD FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE TENDER

FOR THE SUPPLY OF THE GREEN GRASS.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT WITH THE TENDER

NOTICE NUMBER TOWARDS PAYMENT OF TENDER FEES,

ISSUED BY GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM DATED 17.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RE-TENDER NO. P3 3645/2020

DATED 24.03.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 01.01.10 ISSUED

BY THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION DATED

20.01.2010.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 4/3/07 DATED

03.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE

COMMISSION.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SSCR NO. 8/2018

DATED 06.08.2018.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29176/2018

AND CONNECTED CASE DATED 14.09.2018.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO:15 DATED

16.07.2020

EXHIBIT R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO:10 DATED

24/09/2020

W.P.(C)No.21867 of 2020 24

EXHIBIT R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO:09 DATED

O9.10.2020

TKS