IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35088 OF 2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
N. RACHAIAH FOUNDATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN N. RANGASWAMY OFFICE AT NO.865, OPP TO MODI HOSPITAL, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 086 (BY SRI. G. T. KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER … PETITIONER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY PRE-EXAMINATION TRAINING CENTER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 052 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHORT TERM TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 05.07.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-F SUPRA ISSUED BY THE R-2 THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION AS ARBITRARY AND IN CONTRARY TO LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. G. T. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the impugned short term tender notification dated 05.07.2019 by which the tenders have been invited from the eligible prominent training centres for providing pre-examination training for competitive examinations.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned e-tender notification is liable to be quashed as it does not provide for reservations as laid under Section 6 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that Section 6 of the Act has no application to the present factual matrix of the case as it pertains only to contract bidder to the construction.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. On perusal of the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, reads as under:
“Provided that, the authority of calling tender, while issuing necessary notices, letter communication and publications by following the procedure prescribed in the notified departments, not exceeding of 50 Lakhs of the construction work and not exceeding 17.15% should grant tender to the tenderers of scheduled caste and not exceeding 6.96% to the Scheduled Tribes Tenderers.
And provided that, if no tenders received from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, such tenders may be granted to others.”
6. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid proviso, it is evident that the Act provides for procurement of reservation in case of construction contract. In the instant case, the Notice Inviting Tender has been invited from the eligible prominent training centres for providing pre-examination training for competitive examinations.
7. Thus, the aforesaid notification cannot be said to be violative of Section 6 of the Act. The argument raised by the petitioner is misconceived and the same cannot be accepted.
8. Another prayer which has been made by the petitioner is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the representation dated 22.07.2019.
9. In the absence of any legal right and corresponding legal obligation, no such writ of mandamus can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner.
10. Needless to state that it will be open to the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, if so advised.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-