The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of procurement rules to a tender notification and the requirement of an order recording reasons for reduction of time stipulation.

These two appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4375/2011 dated 09.08.2012.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties.

3. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:

The writ petitioners M/s Prodigy Hydro Power (P) limited filed the writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the tender notification dated 10.12.2010 contending that the same is arbitrary discrimination and violative of Article 14 and to quash Annexure “A”, rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner and to issue a further direction by issuing a writ of mandamus to consider the tenders submitted by the petitioner.

4. The Karnataka Power Corporation which is a wholly owned State Corporation invited tenders on 10.12.2010 to take the four mini hydal projects situated in Mallapur, Sirwar, Ganekal and Kalmala for renovation, operation and maintenance. The technical details of each of the four units are as hereunder:

(a) Mallapur Unit – 2 units of 4.5 MW each

(b) Sirwar Unit – 1 unit of 1` MW

(c) Kalmala – I unit of 0.4 MW

(d) Ganekal – 1 unit of 0.35 MW

Pursuant to the tender invited by the KPCL, the writ petitioners requested the KPCL to extend the time limit to participate in the bid and also on other grounds. The same was rejected. However, it also submitted its tender. Similarly the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 885/13 also participated in the tender. The tender documents submitted by M/s Dakshina Kannada Power Private Limited was accepted by KPCL by rejecting the tender submitted by the writ petitioners. Challenging the same, writ petition came to be filed.

5. Though several grounds were urged in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge quashed the tender notification only on the ground that tender notification is not in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 (For short “The Rules”). Rule 17 reads as hereunder:

“Rule 17: Minimum time for submission of tenders:

(1) The Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and a minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant Tender Bulletin the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows:

(a) for tenders upto rupees two crores in value, thirty days; and

(b) for tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value, (sixty days).

(2) Any reduction in the time stipulated under sub-rule (1) has to be specifically authorised by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing”.

According to the tender notification, the tender notification was published on 10.12.10 informing the intending bidders that last date to receive the application as 15.12.10 and the last date to issue bid document is 16.12.2010 and last date to receive completed bids is on 30.12.2010.

6. Relying upon these dates, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there shall be a minimum period of 60 days since the value of the tender was more than two crores and the learned single judge also came to the conclusion in view of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 17, there was no specific order passed by an authorised authority superior to the tender inviting authority for recording the reasons in writing to reduce the time stipulation of 60 days. Only on this technical ground, the writ petition came to be allowed and directed the KPCL to invite fresh tenders in accordance with law.

7. The order of the learned Single Judge is challenged by the KPCL – tender inviting authority and also the other bidder whose bid is yet to the accepted. Therefore, these two matters are heard together.

8. Mr. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the rules are not applicable to the facts of this case. According to him, the rules are applicable to the categories of projects as detailed under Rule 3. According to him, the rules are applicable onl