IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.9835 OF 2019 (GM - TEN) Between:
Sri. Kishore Kumar, Aged about 63 years, S/o late Seetharamaiah, Proprietor, GCS Thantragnan, No.40, 59th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010.
…Petitioner (By Sri.Prasad H.C., for Sri.Nataraj R., Advocates) And:
Karnataka Urban Water Supply And Drainage Board, By its Chief Engineer (D&M), No.5 & 6, Jalabhavan, BTM Layout, 1st Block, 1st Stage, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore – 560 029.
(By Sri. C.Channegowda, Advocate) …Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 which is enclosed as Annexure – E and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has challenged the validity of the order dated 11.2.2019, by which he has been debarred by respondent for a period of one year from participating in the tender.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that on 20.2.2018, the respondent invited bids on the e-procurement portal for supply, installation and maintenance of laptops and peripherals for the project development and management consultant (PDMC) units located in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner on 20.7.2018 submitted his online bid. The petitioner was asked to appear on 6.8.2018 along with all the originals of the uploaded documents for verification. Thereupon, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 9.8.2018 along with the originals of the uploaded documents and found that one of the staff had tampered with the supply order that was addressed to the petitioner to seem as if it was addressed to Intellic Systems and the same was uploaded. The respondent was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner and thereupon, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.1.2019, by which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be blacklisted.
4. The petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice, had replied acknowledging his mistake and assured to make amends and requested that the proceedings initiated against him be closed. However, by order dated 11.2.2019, the respondent blacklisted the petitioner for a period of one year and debarred him for participating from the future tenders. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and the respondent ought to have taken a lenient view as the petitioner has submitted an unconditional apology for the mistake committed on his behalf. It is further submitted that rejection of the bid of the petitioner would make him to suffer for the act, which was committed on behalf of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the action of the respondent is perfectly justified and does not call for interference.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
.
8. Admittedly, the show cause notice dated 5.1.2019 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed his response to the said show cause notice on 14.1.2019 and apologized for the mistake committed by the staff. The relevant extract of the order which has been impugned in this petition reads as under:
“ In view of the show cause notice issued to the agency vide letter dated 5.1.2019, the agency have furnished its explanation vide letter dated 14.1.2019 and apologized for the mistake. The explanation of the agency was submitted before the Managing Director, KUWS&DB with a recommendation to blacklist and debar the agency for a period of one year. The Managing Director agreed for the same vide on para (66) of the file No.KWB/TEC/CE(D&M) /AMRUT/Laptops- Tender/2018-19. Hence, the following order:
ORDERS THEREON KWB/TEC/CE(D&M)/AMRUT/Laptop s-Tender/2868/2018-19, Dated 11.2.2019 Under the circumstances explained above, M/s. GC’s Thantragnan Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru is hereby blacklisted and debarred from participating in the tenders invited by KUWS&DB for the period of one year with effect of issue of this proceedings.”
9. Thus, on perusal of the relevant extraction, it is evident the order is passed on the basis of the admission made by the petitioner. Under section 14(a) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, the procurement agency may debar tenders, for a period not exceeding three years from participation in its tenders. In the instant case, the petitioner has been debarred from participating in the bid for one year. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the forged document along with the tender. The aforesaid order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Cs/-
CT:SN Sd/- JUDGE