The reservation requirement under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act and Rules, 1999 does not apply to the supply of manpower.

ORDER :

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs.

“(i) Issue writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari to quash the invitation of tender for works published through E-Procurement Karnataka Public Procurement Portal, KPTCL/ Karnataka Power Transmiss, KPTCL SEE Belgaum (100873.1.1.1) published on 31.01.2023 covering 59 packages in terms of Annexure-L by the 5th respondent, by allowing the writ petition in the ends of justice and equity;

(ii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents 4 and 5 to invite fresh tenders by inserting the conditions strictly of reserving 25% of works to the persons belonging to S.C. and S.T. Category by allowing the writ petition in the ends of justice and equity;”

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions as urged in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned tender at Annexure-L dated 31.01.2023 is illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be set aside since 25% reservation for persons belonging to SC/ST category as required under Section 6 and Rule 27-A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act and Rules, 1999 (for short ‘KTPP Act and Rules’) has not been made in the impugned tender though the value is less than Rs.50 lakhs. It is further submitted that though Rule 17(1)(a) of the KTTP Rules stipulate a period of 30 days for submission of tenders, the impugned tender dated 31.01.2023 fixing the last date for submission as 17.02.2023, is contrary to the said Rules and the same deserves to be set aside on this ground also.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the contention regarding 25% reservation was applicable only to construction works and the impugned tender in question was for supply of man power and consequently the said contention urged by the petitioner for the purpose of challenging the impugned tender is liable to be rejected as held in various judgments of this Court including the case of A.V. Anand Vs. State of Karnataka & others (W.P. No. 12397/2020 dated 22.12.2020); and Shri Yallaraj T. Kattimani Vs. Superintending Engineer & Others (W.P. No. 102932/2022 dated 12.09.2022). It is also submitted that the petitioner was only an electrical contractor who does not have locus standi to file the present petition as held by this Court in the case of Sharada Electricals & another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (W.P. No. 65/2021 & connected matters disposed of on 06.12.2021).

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, while the first contention urged by the petitioner regarding there being no 25% reservation is concerned, the said contention has already been rejected by this Court in the aforementioned judgments in A.V. Anand’s and Yallaraj’s cases supra, the second contention of the petitioner has also been rejected in Sharada Electricals case supra, as can be seen from the aforesaid decisions.

6. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.