In the companynter filed to the writ petition the stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioners tenders were rejected since the petitioner did number satisfy the eligibility criteria for submission of the bid.
Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the sister companypany , had number renewed its enlistment and had adverse remarks against it in respect of workload return of SS Class Contractors for the quarter ending September, 2017.
The learned single judge allowed the appeal holding that the order passed by the appellate authority was number a speaking order and, therefore, number legally sustainable.
1 and 2 and some of the tenderers who were number parties before the learned single judge filed writ appeals.
1 and 2 issued numberice inviting tenders for two works at Kochi.
The petitioner The Silppi Constructions Contractors, hereinafter referred to as the firm uploaded its companypetitive bid on the site and companyplied with all the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH companyditions.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the respondents 1 and 2 were directed to companysider the financial bid of the petitioner.
The learned single judge went on to hold that the remarks against the sister companypany were number justified.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala and the main ground raised was that numberreasons were given either while rejecting its tender or the appeals.
It was urged that since the adverse remarks had been given to the sister companypany the petitioner firm companyld number be awarded the companytract.
The technical bids of the petitioner were rejected by Date 2019.07.30 120711 IST Reason the tendering authorities on 28.03.2019.
53 crores and Rs.
It was also specifically urged that a sister companycern of the petitioners firm namely M s Silppi Realtors and Contractors Pvt.
Keeping in view the urgency of the matter, after detailed hearing the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and we had directed that a reasoned order would follow.
The petitioner filed appeals before the appellate authority on 28.03.2019 itself which were rejected on 09.04.2019.
72 crores respectively.
The estimated companyt of the works were Rs.
Respondent Nos.
Respondent number.
Hence the present order.
