The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the issuance of fresh tenders during an existing contract. Upholding a contract clause permitting multiple contractors, the judge held there was no cause of action and vacated the interim stay.
The writ petition was dismissed and the interim order of stay was vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.30499/2015 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/s Vijaykiran Associates, No.681/1, 15th Cross, K.T.J. Nagar, Davangere, Represented by its Partner Sri Vijay Kumar.
PETITIONER.
(By Sri Ravindranath M., Advocate)
AND:
represented by General Manager. dated 19.08.2015)
RESPONDENTS.
(By Smt. Sowbhagya N.A., Advocate for R1 Sri N.K. Ramesh, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the tender notification dated 29.06.2015 vide Annexure ‘H’ and direct the respondent not to call for fresh tender or issue any order to any third party / anybody till 31.09.2016 for appointing H & T contractors for handling and transport work of food grains and other commodities at Central Warehouse, Davangere.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court in the circumstance
that it was engaged after inviting tenders for the purposes of transportation of food grains at the instance of the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. It transpires that even during the currency of the agreement, respondent No.1 has invited fresh tenders from other transporters for similar services. It is in this background that the petition is filed claiming that during the currency of the agreement with the petitioner, respondents
ought not to have engaged in any other contract. It is on this contention that an order of stay was granted in ordering notice to the respondents.
1st respondent produced the copy of the tender application, which contains the clauses, to which the petitioner had agreed. One of the clauses reads as follows:
“XIV Volume of Work
a) Subject as hereinafter mentioned the Corporation do not guarantee any definite volume of work or any particular pattern of service at any time or throughout the period of the contract . The mere mention of any item of work in this contract does not by itself confirm a right on the contractor to demand that the work relating to all or any item thereof at the concerned Warehouse should necessarily or exclusively be entrusted to them. The Corporation shall also have the exclusive right to appoint one or more contractors at any time viz at the time of award of the contract and/or during the tenure of the contract for any or all the services mentioned hereunder and to divide the work as between such contractors in any manner that the Corporation may decide and no claim shall lie against the Corporation by reason of such division of work.”
there is no impediment for the respondents to invite fresh
tenders notwithstanding the engagement of the petitioner. This is an express clause agreed to by the petitioner in having submitted its tender against such a clause being present in the tender conditions. Therefore, there is no cause of action for this petition. The same is disposed of. The interim order of stay granted stands vacated.
Sd/JUDGE
sma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a public corporation can issue fresh tenders during the currency of an existing contract when the tender conditions explicitly permit appointment of multiple contractors.
Whether the petitioner is barred from claiming a right to exclusive work based on a specific clause agreed to in the same contract.
Whether an interim stay should be continued to prevent respondents from inviting fresh tenders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Vijaykiran Associates
Central Warehousing Corporation
Food Corporation of India
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court