IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.841 OF 2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/S. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA BOREWELLS SIDLAGHATTA CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS AT KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANJIGUNTE POST SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI K.V. SRINATH ... APPELLANT (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD V.V. TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA MAHARSHI VALMIKI SCHEDULE TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. JASMA BHAVAN ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU -560 052 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER – DEVELOPMENT & TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD V.V. TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 5. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 6. THE DISTRICT MANAGER DR. AMBEDKAR DEVP. CORPN LTD., 3RD CROSS, COTTONPET M.G ROAD, KOLAR-563 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAY HOLLA, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI Y.H. VIJAYKUMAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R5, SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS TO THE APPELLANT AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS a) TO ADMIT THIS WRIT APPEAL, PERUSE THE SAME, HEAR THE PARTIES AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.53791/2018, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is presented by the writ petitioner challenging order dated 22.02.2019 in W.P.No.53791/2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Hon’ble Single Judge.
3. Petitioner owns a rig and takes up contracts to sink borewells. The State Government gave him a contract for sinking borewells in Kolar District in 3 packages. Petitioner was not in a position to complete the assignment. The State Government has issued a fresh tender notification on 09.11.2018 inviting bids from borewell contractors to sink borewells throughout the State. Petitioner approached this Court challenging the said notification on the ground that the bid amount has been increased from `50 lakhs to `235 lakhs and it has rendered the petitioner ineligible to submit his bid. The Hon’ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the premise that it is an administrative exigency as far as the respondents are concerned. Hence, this writ appeal.
4. Shri D.R. Ravishankar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that unless the empirical data was placed before the Hon’ble Single Judge justifying increase in the quantum of bid amount from `50 lakhs to `235 lakhs, the State could not have unilaterally changed the scheme and the manner in which the earlier contracts were being given. He submits that this excludes individual rig owners like the petitioner from participating in the bid and affects his right to carry on business.
5. Shri Uday Holla, learned Advocate General opposing the appeal submits that as early as on 30.11.2018, the respondent – Corporation has issued a notice to the writ petitioner conveying him that he had not even begun sinking of borewells pursuant to the earlier contract given to him. He has also placed a copy of subsequent notice dated 15.04.2019 for the perusal of this Court. He submits that petitioner has completed only 8 out of 105 borewells for which contract was given to him.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri Ravishankar placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS vs. UTKAL PHARMACEUTICALS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER ([2016] 12 SCC 780).
7. Shri Uday Holla, learned Advocate General placed reliance on the following authorities:
1) (2000) 5 SCC 287 – MONARCH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS;
2) (2012) 8 SCC 216 – MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS;
3) (1973) 2 SCC 124 – SURESH vs. VASANT AND OTHERS;
4) (2007) 10 SCC 33 – PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LTD. vs. HOTEL VENUS INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS;
5) (1999) 1 SCC 492 – RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs. I.V.R. CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND OTHERS.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
9. Petitioner was awarded the contract to sink 105 borewells. It is the case of the respondents that the work in respect of only 8 borewells out of 105 was completed. Accordingly, notice dated 15.04.2019 has been issued to the petitioner. The contract pertains to ‘Ganga Kalyana’ Scheme which is envisaged for the benefit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
10. Learned Advocate General points out that after having obtained the contract for Kolar District, petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily complete the assignment. Further, by filing the instant writ petition, petitioner also has delayed the project as this Court had granted interim order which was in force for approximately about five months.
11. With regard to the authority relied upon by Shri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Advocate General submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Utkal Pharmaceuticals was specifically considering the aspect of Industrial Policy Resolution, 2007 and accordingly, remanded the matter for reconsideration to the High Court. Placing strong reliance on the decision in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra), learned Advocate General submitted that as far as tenders are concerned, the authority calling for the tender is the best judge.
12. The fact remains that petitioner has been able to sink only 8 out of 105 borewells for which contract was given to him. Implementation of projects is within the domain of executive. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no legal infirmity in the decision taken by the State Government to modify the mode and method of awarding new contracts. Hence, we are at one with the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge that these are policy matters in which the respondent – State is the best judge to decide the manner in which the projects have to be implemented.
13. In the circumstances, this appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and it is also dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE ca