Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, J.
V.P. Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Karnatka Institute Of Medical Sciences – Respondent
Writ Petition No.105292 of 2024 (GM-TEN)
Decided on : 25-09-2024
Tender - Writ Petition - Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 - The court analyzed the legality of tender conditions imposed by the respondent, interpreting provisions of the KTPP Act to uphold the authority's discretion in tender processes, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a proprietary concern in laboratory equipment, challenged a tender notification requiring all equipment for multiple departments to be supplied by a single bidder, claiming it violated the KTPP Act and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender conditions were within the authority's discretion under the KTPP Act, aimed at ensuring efficiency and accountability, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate arbitrariness or violation of rights.
Issues: Whether the tender condition mandating a single bidder for multiple departments violated the KTPP Act and the principles of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tender inviting authority has the discretion to impose conditions that serve public interest, and judicial review is limited to assessing the reasonableness and legality of the decision-making process.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
The prayer sought in the Writ Petition to quash the paper publication dated 09.07.2024 issued by the respondent at Annexure-C and also the impugned notification dated 08.07.2024 issued by the respondent at Annexure-D and grant such other relief as deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before this Court while invoking the writ jurisdiction is that the petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on the business of laboratory equipments, consumables and chemicals to the hospitals and diagnostic laboratories within the State of Karnataka. It is also registered with the department of Drug Controller Government of Karnataka and so also registered under the GST and the same is produced as Annexures-A and B.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the tenders across State are called for each equipment or department and there has never been any issuance of a tender notification for multiple department equipments under one package. It is strangely on 08.07.2024, the respondent issued a paper publication inviting applications for supply and installation of medical laboratory equipments on cost per reportable test (CPRT) basis to Biochemistry, Pathology and Microbiology at Central Laboratory at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi (KIMS). The petitioner relies upon the paper publication which is produced as Annexure-C. The respondent, for the first time has called for the tender of all departments and has imposed a condition that all the equipments mentioned in publication and notification shall be supplied by the single bidder who is authorized by the company so manufactured and list of the same is mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the petition. It is contended that in list of the equipments mentioned in paragraph No.3, the item Nos. 3 and 4 are manufactured by only two companies i.e., Bio-Merieux and Becton Dickinsons in the entire world and only two persons have the dealership of these two companies one amongst it is the entire State of Karnataka i.e., Maxim Bio Medical. The main contention of the petitioner is that imposition of the aforesaid condition was only ensure that the said firm gets the impugned tender as others are not authorized distributors of equipments mentioned as item Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner relies upon the notification as Annexure-D. It is the contention of the petitioner that the pre-bidding meeting was scheduled on 20.07.2024 and the same was postponed to 25.07.2024 and the same was attended by this petitioner and so also others and the petitioner herein raised objections to the tender condition which mandated that all the equipments for all the three departments shall be supplied by the single bidder (Condition No.D) and the same was rejected without even assigning any reasons. The counsel would also contend that the pre-bidding proceedings were uploaded through the online portal on 22.08.2024 and it is only after the uploading of the said document, the petitioner came to know about the rejection and the proceedings of pre-bidding meeting dated 25.07.2024 is relied upon as Annexure-E. The main mainly contention of the petitioner is that the condition at Sl. No.D is included only in order to defeat the right of the petitioner to participate in the tender and date is fixed for submission of online applications on 10.09.2024 and on 12.09.2024 the technical bid will be opened. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. The counsel for petitioner would contend that the condition in the tender notification is contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (for short, ‘KTPP Act’) and Rules made thereunder and the same is only to ensure the non- participation and to facilitate a person has intentionally imposed the said condition and the entire process is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The counsel would also contend that the condition
The court affirmed that tender conditions set by authorities are subject to limited judicial review, focusing on their reasonableness and adherence to statutory provisions.
The formulation of tender conditions falls within the administrative domain of the authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or favoritism. The courts cannot interfere wit....
Tender conditions upheld as reasonable for bidder integrity, safety and compliance; judicial review in contracts limited to arbitrariness, mala fides or public interest, with deference to administrat....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Judicial review of tender conditions is restricted to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, reinforcing that the authority determining eligibility criteria has the discretion and expertise in c....
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
Judicial review of tenders limited to arbitrariness or malafide; eligibility conditions upheld if public interest served with multiple qualified bidders; bid time reduction valid with approval; ineli....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of judicial review in tender matters, the need for commercial prudence in evaluating tenders, and the importance of fairness and non....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
