The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of tenders must be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the tender notification, and arbitrary rejections without communication of reasons and opportunity of hearing are erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

In the instant appeal, the appellant has prayed for the following reliefs :

i) Set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 05.01.2021 in W.P.No.148505/2020 and dismiss the writ petition in W.P.No.148505/2020 filed by respondent No.3, in the interest of justice and equity.

ii) Issue such other order or direction that is deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Respondent No.2 issued a tender notification on 21st July 2020, inviting application for tender document for procurement of Man Power Agency for Band Peon for Bagalakote District under ‘e’ procurement system. Respondent No.3petitioner/Gemeni Security Force and Allied Services was successful bidder and it was opened on 31.07.2020. Respondent No.3petitioner was held to be qualified in financial bid and was adjudged as L1. When things stood thus, respondent No.2 had cancelled ‘e’ tender and had issued a fresh tender on the ground that petitioner had not provided services as per RPF with reference to earlier tender. This was communicated by the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, through internal communication dated 24.09.2020 as per Annexure-D. In furtherence thereof, respondents have taken a decision to cancel earlier tender notification dated 21.07.2020 and called for fresh tender. Thus, Respondent No.3, feeling aggrieved by the decision at Annexure-D, presented Writ Petition No.148505/2020 (GMTEN). It was allowed on 05.01.2021. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant who is one of the bidder and participant in the subsequent tender notification.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short ‘Act, 1999’) read with Clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20th April 2020, there is no infirmity in rejection of the Respondent No.3petitioner’s tender bid vide Annexure-D dated 24.09.2020. It is further submitted that in terms of conditions stated in the earlier work order dated 20th February 2019 which was issued in favour of Respondent No.3petitioner vide Condition Nos.3 and 4 would support the impugned communication at Annexure-D.

4. It is further submitted that reading of Section 14 of Act, 1999, he has pointed out that changes in the scope of procurement is one of the issue that has been taken into consideration by the official respondent in rejecting the respondent No.3petitioner’s bid. Further, it is submitted that official respondent/prescribed authority who has floated the tender notification is empowered to cancel the order in terms of clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20.07.2020. Thus, the learned single Judge has not appreciated Section 14 of the Act, 1999 and clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification and the fact that Respondent No.3petitioner’s conduct in respect of previous tender read with condition Nos.3 and 4 in the work order dated 20th February 2019, the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.01.2021 passed in writ petition is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State reiterated the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and stressed on Section 14 read with Clause 19.3 and 19.6 in the tender notification dated 20.07.2020.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for third respondent supported the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.01.2021 stating that in the tender notification, there are no conditions in respect of any violation of previous condition by a bidder who participated in the future tender notification is disqualified for future tender process. It is also submitted that Annexure-D is only an internal communication between two officers. In other words, the third respondent has not been made known under what circumstances his bid was rejected. In all fairness, before rejection of 3rd Respondent-petitioner’s tender, an opportunity of hearing should have been provided. In the presen