Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.G. PANDIT, J.
S.K. Madar - Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Vishwa Vidyalaya - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 105709 of 2019, 105710 of 2019, 107541 of 2018, 107702 of 2018
Decided On : 21-06-2019
F.V. Patil, Adv., K.L. Patil, Adv., S.S. Beturmath, Adv., Sunil S. Desai, Adv., Vinay S. Koujalagi, Adv., M.L. Vanti, Adv., Mallikarjun S. Hiremath, Adv.
Judicial review in the matter of tender process is limited, and the court will not interfere with the decision of the authorities unless it is shown to be totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
Headnote:
Tender Process - Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 - The court examined the decision-making process and held that judicial review in the matter of tender process is limited. The court would not act as an appellate court unless the decision taken by the authorities is shown to be totally arbitrary and unreasonable. The court found that the respondent University invited tenders for cleaning and sanitization of buildings, and the tender was finalized after nine months. The court held that the decision of the University to award the contract to the lowest tenderers was neither arbitrary nor irrational and was in the public interest. The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the award of the contract and the work order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the award of a contract and issuance of a work order to respondent No.3 in pursuance of a tender notification. The petitioners alleged that the tender inviting authority had decided to recall the tender due to technical reasons, and subsequently, the contract was awarded to respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioners also suppressed the filing of earlier writ petitions challenging the tender notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. It held that the decision of the University to award the contract to the lowest tenderers was neither arbitrary nor irrational and was in the public interest. The court dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are to be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of appeal? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief as sought for in the writ petitions?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the contract and the fact that the tender was awarded to the lowest tenderers justified the decision of the University. It also noted that the petitioners suppressed material facts and failed to disclose the filing of earlier writ petitions, indicating their intention to delay the tender process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the award of the contract and the work order.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Pandit, J.
Even though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions are one and the same, both writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.105709-710/2019 have filed the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.
(a) Declare that the allotment of e-procurement tender for supply of man power pursuant to package Nos.1 to 5 to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 read with Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000, in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 brg. No. KVV/Building/2018-19/937 passed by the Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E, in the interest of justice and equity.
(c) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to call a fresh tender supply of man power in respect of package Nos.1 to 5 for pursuant to the Notification dated 15.10.2018 vide Annexure-A, in the interest of justice and equity.
- - -
3. The petitioners in W.P.No.107541/2018 and W.P. No.107702/2018 filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.
(1) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the notification bearing No. KaViVi/ Kattada/Tender/Nairmaleekarana/2018-19/ 643 dated 15.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-D in the interest of justice and equity.
- - -
4. The second petitioner in W.P.Nos.107509-710/2019 is the first petitioner in W.P.No.107541/2018 and W.P.No.107702/2018. The respondent-University on 15.10.2018 called for short term tender by e-procurement for a period of 12 months in respect of supply of man power for maintenance of different wings of the University buildings under five packages. Last date for submitting the tender was 09.11.2018 which was extended upto 17.11.2018. It is stated that the petitioners being in the field of supplying man power submitted their e-tender to the respondent-University. Further, it is stated that the first petitioner applied for package numbers 3 and 4 and second petitioner applied for package No.2. Third respondent applied for package Nos.1 and 5 and the respondent No.4 applied for package Nos.1 to 5.
5. As per the tender notification tender was invited from the Contractors who are registered with the Labour Department and also the Contractor was required to submit VAT Clearance certificate and I.T. Returns for the last three years. The date for opening the tender was 19.11.2018 but the tender was opened on 20.11.2018 in the presence of the tenderers.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that on scrutiny of tender documents the first respondent-University noted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not qualified. Again the petitioners and other tenderers were called on 12.12.2018. On that day, the University on scrutiny found certain of the Contractors qualified for certain of the packages. But finally decision was taken on technical reasons to recall the tender. As the University had taken decision to recall the tender the petitioners were under the impression that the tender notification will be reissued. But, however on 29.01.2019 the first and second respondents issued work order to respondent No.3 in respect of package No.3 and work order was issued to respondent No.4 in respect of package Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved by the acceptance of tender in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and issuance of work order, the petitioners are before this Court in W.P. Nos.105709-710/2019.
7. W.P. No. 107541/2018 and W.P. No. 107702/2018 are filed on 06.11.2018 challenging the notification dated 16.10.2018 calling for e-procurement. This Court, b
