Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Alok Aradhe, J.
Harsha Vardhan Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnatakaurban Development Authority - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 30940 of 2019
Decided On : 29-08-2019
For the Appellant : Jayakumar S. Patil, Adv., Mohamad Tahir A., Adv.
For the Respondent: Vijay Kumar A. Patil, Adv., S.N. Prashanth Chandra, Adv., Srinivasan, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - SWM Rules,2016 - Quash - Exercise of powers of judicial - Petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent to finalize tender process in cases of bidders who have participated in more than one ward in accordance with clause Request for Proposal (RFP)- petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent finalize tender in respect of Ward excluding respondent light of condition of Request for Proposal- petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent finalize tender process of bidders in compliance with condition –Held, Corporation is accepted it will render requirement of financial capability which is laid down in Clause otiose and redundant- object of providing for financial capability is to ensure smooth execution of work contention on behalf of corporation that even though bidder may not have sufficient Annual Turnover yet he can be declared as lowest bidder does not deserve acceptance as same would be contrary to very object of incorporating condition with regard to financial capability object of which is to ensure that contractor has resources to complete work of contract work awarded to him is executed Tender Inviting Authority -Tender Inviting Authority cannot be permitted to deviate from same- It is trite law that respondent-Corporation which is an instrumentality of State is supposed to act in fair reasonable and rational manner while evaluating contract- This court is conscious that in exercise of powers of judicial review this Court would not interfere with dispute between rival renderers in absence of an element of public interest- exercise of powers of judicial review is called for situation of case- In instant case in flagrant contravention of expressed stipulation contained in Clause Request for Proposal respondent Corporation has declared respondent be lowest bidder even though he does not have requisite financial capacity - Therefore impugned decision of respondent- Corporation in declaring respondent lowest bidder in respect of Ward hereby quashed respondent-Corporation is directed to evaluate bids of petitioner as well as respondent No-6 whose bids have found to be technically responsive and to evaluate their tender bids in light of stipulation contained in Clause Request for Proposal document as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed
JUDGMENT :
Alok Aradhe J.
Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for Mr.Mahamad Tahir A., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.S.N.Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
Mr.T.Srinivasan, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the 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 prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender process, in cases of the bidders who have participated in more than one ward, in accordance with clause 3.4.2 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender in respect of Ward No.26 by excluding respondent No.6 in the light of condition No.3.4.1 (B) Sl.No.(ii) and 3.4.2 of Request for Proposal. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender process of the bidders in compliance with the condition No.3.4.1 (B) Sl.No.(ii) and 3.4.2 of the Request for Proposal.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the respondent No.5 had floated a tender in January 2019 for Primary door to door collection and transportation of segregated wet waste, sanitary waste and street sweeping waste in 198 wards of Bangalore City. The last date for submission of the bid was 20.02.2019. The last date of submission of the bids was extended from time to time and was eventually fixed on 10.05.2019. The petitioner submitted his bid for Ward No.26 whereas, respondent No.6 has submitted his bid for Ward Nos.9 and 26. In respect of Ward No.26, the petitioner and respondent No.6 are the only two tenderers whose bids were found to be technically qualified. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 has opened the financial bid of the petitioner and respondent No.6 and even in respect of Ward No.26, respondent No.6 has been declared as the lowest bidder. It is the case of the petitioner that the bid in respect of Ward No.26 has not been evaluated strictly in accordance with the tender conditions. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a representation on 31.05.2019 as well as on 29.06.2019. However, the representation submitted by the petitioner failed to evoke any response. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the Request for Proposal and in particular, Clauses 3.4.1,3.4.2,3.4.3 and 3.7.5 has submitted that where a bidder submits a bid for more than one package, before opening of the financial bid of such preferred bidder for the second package, the preferred bidders residual, technical and financial bid capacity has to be estimated. It is further submitted that the residual, technical and financial bid capacity has to be calculated by deducting minimum technical capacity and financial capacity as mentioned in Clauses 3.4.1(A) and 3.4.1(B) for the awarded package from the total financial capacity of the bidder. It is also urged that admittedly the average Annual Turnover of respondent No.6 for the preceding two years was Rs.736.14 lakhs. It is further submitted that the award of contract to respondent No.6 in respect of Ward No.9, his residual, financial bidding capacity was 148.72 Lakhs, whereas the declared value of the contract work in respect of Ward No.26 was Rs.280.34 Lakhs and therefore, respondent No.6 was required to have the financial capacity of minimum of Rs.560.68 Lakhs. It is also submitted that admittedly respondent No.6 did not have the requisite financial capacity and had only the capacity of Rs.148.72 Lakhs and therefore, the bi
