Dismissed

Jagadeeshaiah K R v. the Tumkur Urban Development Authority

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2013WP/47653/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the rejection of a tender application. The court held that the tender notice qualification regarding tender capacity was followed correctly and found no ground to interfere with the authority's final selection of the third respondent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected. No work order was issued to the petitioner. The first respondent was directed to issue the work order to the third respondent.

Jagadeeshaiah K R Vs the Tumkur Urban Development… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

WP NO. 47653 OF 2012[LB-RES]

¶7

BETWEEN JAGADEESHAIAH K R S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS PROP: GREEN ENVIRONMENT LANDSCAPES R/AT OPP: SHABA GENERAL STORE 3RD MAIN, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION TUMKUR-572102

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri : V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

1.THE TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BELAGUMBA ROAD NEAR M G STADIUM TUMKUR-572 102 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶12

2.SRI RAGHUNATH D V FATHER NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER M/S ROMANIO LANDSCAAPES PVT LTD NO. 197, 6TH "B" MAIN, 1ST "C" CROSS

¶13

¶14

REMCO LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040

¶15

3.SRI SEETHARAM NAYAK FATHER NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PROP: JYOTHI ENTERPRISES LIC BHEEMAJYOTHI NAGAR WEST OF CHORD ROAD NEAR SHANKAR MUTT BANGALORE-560079

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Sri : CHANDRASHEKAR S. ADV. FOR M/S. HOLLA & HOLLA FOR R1 SRI: S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-1 THE TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGUMBA ROAD, NEAR MAHATHMAGANDHI STADIUM, TUMKUR REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATD 20.11.2012 / 21.11.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.

¶19

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group, this day, the court made the following;

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of

¶22

mandamus directing respondent no.1 to consider the petitioner’s

¶23

representation dated 20/21.11.2012, Annexure-L and to consider

¶24

¶25

the tender application filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-C

¶26

and not to accept the tender application of respondent no.2.

¶27

Respondent no.1 issued a tender notification as per

¶28

Annexure-A dated 26.10.2012 inviting tenders from eligible contractors to provide Landscape Garden. Development to the park opposite to D.C.Office, Tumkur Amanikere. Petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 submitted tender applications. Petitioner offered to execute the work for a sum of Rs.24,74,530/-, second respondent offered a sum of Rs.27,07,726/- and third respondent offered a sum of Rs.28,24,650/-. Though the tender submitted by the petitioner was the lowest, respondent no.1 invited respondent

¶29

no.2 for negotiations. At that stage, petitioner gave a representation to respondent no.1 on 20.11.2012 as per AnnexureL requesting him to invite the petitioner for negotiations. When the matter stood at that stage, the petitioner has filed this writ

¶30

petition on 26.11.2012 with the above prayers.

¶31

¶32

During the pendency of this writ petition the first

¶33

respondent invited the second respondent, negotiated with him, accepted his modified offer for a sum of Rs.24,74,530/- and issued letter of acceptance. At that stage, this court vide order dated 03.12.2012 passed an interim order restraining the first respondent from issuing any work order. Thereafter the second respondent withdrew his offer on some personal reasons. In view of this development, the first respondent held negotiations with the third respondent and his revised offer for Rs.24,74,530/- is now accepted.

¶34

Respondents 1 and 3 have entered appearance and

¶35

filed separate statement of objections. Respondent no.1 contends

¶36

that the tender notification as per Annexure-A prescribes qualification for applying the tender application. On receipt of tender applications from the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3, first respondent processed the same and found that petitioner did not

¶37

¶38

had the tender capacity to carryout the works and accordingly

¶39

they rejected the tender application of petitioner. Thereafter, they considered the application of respondent no.2 and since he opted out, now they have considered the application of third respondent. On these grounds the respondents opposed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶40

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the

¶41

entire writ papers.

¶42

Admittedly, Annexure-A is the tender notification

¶43

issued by the respondent no.1. Clause no.3 of the tender notifications prescribes the qualification for applying the tender.

¶44

Clause No.3.3 specifies as under:

¶45

3.3 Eligible tenderers will be qualified only if their available tender capacity is more than the total tender value. The available tender capacity will be calculated as under:

¶46

Assessed available tender capacity = (AN2.5 – B)

¶47

Where

¶48

¶49

A= Maximum value of Land scape works executed in any

¶50

one year during the last five years taking into account the completed as well as works in progress.

¶51

N = Number of years prescribed for completion of the works for which tenders are invited.

¶52

B = Value, at 2012-13 price level, of existing commitments and on-going works to be completed during the next 2012-13 years.

¶53

On receipt of tender applications from the petitioner

¶54

and respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent processed the same

¶55

and assessed the tender capacity of all the applicants as per Annexure-R1. A perusal of Annexure-R1 specifies that as against

¶56

the tender value of Rs.30.00 lakhs the petitioner had the tender capacity of only Rs.1.69 lakhs, respondent no.2 had the capacity of Rs.75.84 lakhs and respondent no.3 had the capacity of Rs.254.54 lakhs. Since the petitioner did not had the tender

¶57

capacity they rejected his tender application and proceeded to consider the application of respondents 2 and 3. This approach of

¶58

¶59

the first respondent is strictly in terms of the tender document,

¶60

Annexure-A. In the circumstances, the rejection of tender application filed by the petitioner is in accordance with law and the same do not call for interference.

¶61

Though the tender application submitted by the

¶62

second respondent came to be accepted for a modified offer of Rs.24,74,530/- the same did not materialize since the second respondent withdrew his offer for personal reasons. Now the first respondent has accepted the offer submitted by the third respondent for the very same price that was offered by the petitioner i.e., Rs.24,74,530/-. In view of the interim order granted by this court the first respondent has not issued the work order to the third respondent. In the circumstances, I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the acceptance of tender of third respondent by the first respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby rejected. First respondent to issue work order to

¶63

¶64

third respondent subject to fulfilling other conditions of the

¶65

tender.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE. DKB

Jagadeeshaiah K R v. the Tumkur Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeeshaiah K R v. the Tumkur Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidya Vikas Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

M/S J B Hara Properties Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Nagarajaiah S/O Late Hotte Bommaiah Vs the Secretary

Mr Sadananda Bhandary Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S M Sathyanarayan Vs the Assistant Revenue Officer

Smt Prema W/O K Panduranga Rao Vs State of Karnataka