The Supreme Court found a problem in Kerala where contracts for services were being awarded at rates three times higher than usual. This raised concerns about fairness and transparency, suggesting potential exploitation. The court called for better oversight and reform to ensure fairness in Kerala’s service sector contracts.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently uncovered a concerning practice in Kerala, where contracts are given to bidders quoting three times the standard rates. This came to light during a review of a petition regarding the awarding of a construction contract for the Kannur court complex to the Uralungal Labor Society. The petitioner contested by clarifying that it’s mostly owned by the Government, holding an 82 percent stake.
Muhammad Ali, from Nirman Constructions, has challenged the High Court’s decision to grant the construction contract to the Uralungal Labor Society. His legal team, Dushyant Dave and Harris Biran, pointed out that the contract went to the Uralungal Labor Society despite bidding RS 1 crore, 65 lakh higher than them. The Supreme Court acknowledged the unusual practice of awarding contracts at triple the standard rates, which seems specific to Kerala.
The Uralungal Labor Society’s legal representatives argued in court that their structure differs from a typical society, with the Government having an 82 percent majority stake. They also disputed claims that their initial bid exceeded triple the standard rate. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, along with Advocates MM Philip and S. Shyam Kumar, represented the society.
Nirman Constructions claimed in court that the Public Works Department, allegedly acting for the Uralungal Labor Society, stopped the demolition of the 116-year-old court building in Kannur. However, the State Government’s Standing Counsel, CK Sasi, dismissed these allegations, stating that the construction firm only replaced over 50 tiles and that no demolition had begun.
Justices JK Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia stressed the importance of expediting proceedings due to the court’s constitutional obligation. Consequently, the Supreme Court postponed the petitions for a final decision.
