IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.6518/2017(GM-Ten) BETWEEN:
MR.B.NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE BETTEGOWDA, CLASS-I, CIVIL CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO.8129 DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK – 571 103 MYSURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.S.NAGARAJ , ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU – 570 001.
3. THE MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY – 570 001.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MYSURU CITY – 570 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, HCGP SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV. FOR R3 & R4)) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FRESH TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 24.11.2016 AT ANNEXURE `F’ PASSED BY R4 IN SO FAR AS ISSUING FRESH TENDER AT SL. NO.3 WITH RESPECT TO PROVIDING BASIC FACILITIES TO MARATIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURUR TALUK AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the tender notification dated 24.11.2016 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.
2. The petitioner and the other tenderers had responded to the tender notification issued by respondents No. 3 and 4. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the evaluation of the tender was made and the petitioner no doubt was found to have qualified in the technical evaluation in the assessment made on 23.02.2016. Pursuant to the same, the financial bid was also opened and the proposal had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner for consideration. Keeping in view the volume of the tender work, the matter was referred to the Government for consideration. All approvals had been granted, but the work order was yet to be issued. At that stage, since the short term tender notification dated 24.11.2016 was issued in respect of the very same work which was also the subject matter to the tender notification dated 21.11.2015 wherein the petitioner had participated, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the said tender notification.
3. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their objection statement. In the objection statement, it is pointed that the process of tender evaluation on the technical as well as financial aspects were made before issue of the work order and it was noticed that the petitioner had not complied that the conditions stipulated at Clause 3.2(b) of the tender notification where the petitioner was to furnish the financial turn over for the last five years from 2010-11 to 2014-15. In that view, it is contended that the very assessment that had been made with regard to technical evaluation of the petitioner’s bid was not appropriate. In that circumstance, even though the said error was noticed only at a later stage, the same being prior to the issue of work order, the respondents had taken a decision to cancel the evaluation that had been made in favour of the petitioner to award the work and therefore the same was communicated to the petitioner on 14.03.2017. In view of the said cancellation, since the work was to be re-tendered, the impugned tender notification has been issued.
4. The very nature of the sequence of events as noticed above would indicate that even if the provision as contained in Section 14 of KTPP Act, 1999, is taken note, considering the fact that the order dated 14.03.2017 to cancel the acceptance of evaluation made in favour of the petitioner was made prior to the issue of work order and at present, since the said order dated 14.03.2017 has not been assailed, the challenge in this petition only to the subsequent short term tender notification dated 24.11.2016 in any event cannot be sustained. In that view, the prayer as made in the petition cannot be granted.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp