IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2852 OF 2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SRI. G.A. BASAVRAJ S/O ANANT RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: PROPRIETOR KAMADHENU & CO., 99/9 HADADI SIDAPPA COMPOUND NEAR PARIMALA BAR VASANTHA ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 001.
(By Mr. B. RAVINDRA PRASAD, ADV., FOR Mr. HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR MINORITY WELFARE OFFICER V.V. TOWERS, 20TH & 21ST FLOOR DEVARAJ URS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 001.
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DAVANAGERE-577 501.
(By Mr. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 10.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, VIDE ANNEXURE-B. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 10.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, VIDE ANNEXURE-B & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.B.Ravindra Prasad for Mr.Hemant Chandangoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the impugned Tender Notification dated 10.01.2019 issued by respondent No3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Tender Notification was issued on 10.01.2019 and the last date for submission of the Tender Notice was 24.01.2019. However, the same was extended upto 08.02.2019 It was further submitted that since the tender was for a sum of more than Rs.2 Crore in view of Rule 17(1) of the Karnataka Transparency public Procurements Rules,2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule’ for short) the period of submission of tender should have been 60 days. The impugned NIT has been issued in violation of the Rule 17(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that under the Rule 17(2), reduction in time for submission of tender is permissible by an authority superior to the tender inviting authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing. In the instant case, the tender was issued for supply of food materials to hostels and five residential schools and the last date for submission of the tenders was 24.01.2019. It is further submitted with the approval of the superior authority viz., the Deputy Commissioner the time was reduced to less than 60 days. However, the time for submission of bids was extended up to 08.02.2019 in order to enable the persons like the petitioner to submit their bids. The petitioner has failed to submit the bid.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. Admittedly, the tender was issued to supply food materials to the hostels as well as the five residential schools. Thus, public interest is involved in procurement of the food materials for the inmates of the hostel as well as the students of the residential schools. An authority superior than the Tender Inviting Authority has reduced the time to less than 60 days and in fact, the time, which was initially fixed for submission of tender was enhanced from 24.01.2019 to 08.02.2019 However, in the extended time, the petitioner has failed to submit the tender. The impugned NIT has not been issued in violation of any statutory provision and the scope of judicial review with regard to the tender condition is extremely limited as fixation of the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender is in the realm of the Authority inviting the tender. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS