The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of tenders and the award of contracts to state-owned undertakings do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) AS these cases aye intimately connected and raise common questions of law, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. 1, therefore, propose to dispose of them by a common order.

( 2 ) A wholly owned Karnataka Government Company called the Karnataka State Agro Corn products Limited, Bangalore-respondent No. 1 which itself is a subsidiary of another wholly owned Karnataka Government company called Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of energy food, for the manufacture of which, it inter alia buys a pulse called 'bangal gram'. In tender notification No. KSCP/pdef/45/83-84 dt.- 12-5-1983 (Annexure-A) the Executive Director of respondent No. 1 called for tenders from intending suppliers for the supply of 650 metric tons of bengal gram on the terms and conditions stipulated in that notification. The last day and time for receipt of tenders was 1 p. m. on 4-6-1983 and the time for opening of tenders was notified as 4-30 p. m. on the same day, in response to the said tender notification the petitioner in Writ petition No. 12006 of 1983 and another wholly owned Government company of Karnataka government called Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the KFC, Limited) respondent No. 2 filed their tenders noting different rates for the supply of Bengal gram to respondent No. 1. The rate offered by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12006 of 1983 viz. , Rs. 420/- per metric ton was the lowest. Along with his tender, he had also enclosed the necessary requisite Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as required by Clause (4) of the tender notification. But, respondent No. 2 while quoting a higher rate had not enclosed the requisite emd and had sought for waiving the same on the ground that it was an undertaking of government.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11736 of 1983 claims to be the manager of petitioner in writ Petition No. 12006 of 1983 or some other tenderer that is not very clear from his petition. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12069 of 1983 who is stated to be the previous contractor had not offered its tender before the appointed time and date or there after.

( 4 ) ON 4-6-1983 the Executive Director of respondent No. 1 opened the tenders in the presence of all the tenderers and on scrutiny he has neither accepted any of the tenders nor specifically rejected any or all of them on that day, but placed the matter itself before a committee called 'purchase Committee' of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to a the purchase committee) which in its meeting held on 7-6-1983 decided as hereunder with reference to tenders received for Bengal gram with which alone we are concerned in these cases.

"3 Bengal gram dhal; seven tenders were received for the supply of Bengal gram Dhal of which three tenders were treated as conditional because of the following reasons : (i) In case of M/s. Parlesha Agencies Pvt. Ltd. , he had submitted a cheque towards EMD instead of a Demand Draft. (ii) In the case of M/s. Pushpa Agaencies, the party had expressed that he could su;bmit only bank guarantee to wards security instead of cash remittance. (iii) In case of M/s. Karnataka F and C Supplies they did not submit any EMD. However, the committee observed that since a Government organization was participating in the tenders, even though they had not given EMD, it was decided to waive it off, as a special case. The Committee also observed that if all things were equal, the work could be entrusted to them. The members of the committee then decided to call the General Manager, Karnataka Food and civil Supplies Corporation, Bangalore for discussion and to ascertain whether they would be willing to supply Bengal gram Dhal at the lowest rate adhering to all the terms and conditions of the tender strictly. "

In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the General Manage of KFC Limited was contacted, who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document