Dismissed

Ashwini Trading Company v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2018WP/107129/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a tender notification issued mid-year for food supply to minority institutions. The court held that since the petitioner could participate in the new tender and the previous contract was covered by an extension order, no merit justified quashing the fresh tender.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition praying to quash the tender notification dated 17.10.2018.

Ashwini Trading Company Vs the Deputy… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.107129/2018 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ASHWINI TRADING COMPANY, DR GANGADARAYYA COMPLEX, SHOP NO.4-12-118/6, AMBEDKAR CIRLCE, GAVIMATH ROAD, KOPPAL-583231, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT PADMAVATHI W/O. PAYASAGAR CHINDE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

A N D :

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, TQ & DIST:KOPPAL.

¶11

THE DISTRICT OFFICER, MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, D C OFFICE COMPLEX, HOSAPETE ROAD, KOPPAL. ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI ANTHONY R.RODRIGUES, AGA)

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED:17.10.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-E FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019 AND ETC.,

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying this Court to issue writ of certiorari quashing the tender Notification dated 17.10.2018 issued by respondent No.2-District Officer, Minority Welfare Department, for the academic year 2018-2019. He has also further prayed to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the tender period of the petitioner till completion of the academic year 2018-2019 which was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.03.2018.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.

¶19

The gist of the case is that respondent No.2 issued tender notification for supply of Food Materials to Minority Pre-Metric, Post-Metric Hostels, Residential

¶20

¶21

Schools and P.U.College, coming under Minority Welfare Department for the year 2017-18. Petitioner was one of the participant in the said tender and she successfully bid the tender and the tender was allotted for the year 2017-18 by order dated 20.03.2018. It is further submitted that to the utter shock of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 had issued another tender notification vide Annexure – E calling for tender for the period of 2018-19, in the middle of the academic year and to deprive the petitioner by stopping the supply of food grains and other materials. As such, he prayed to quash the said tender notification issued by the respondent No.2.

¶22

It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶23

for the petitioner that the impugned tender notification as per Annexure – E is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. He further submitted by referring to Rule 17(1)(a) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public

¶24

¶25

Procurement Rules, 2000 that the tender inviting authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and a minimum time is allowed between the date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant Tender and tender up to Rs.2 crores in value, 30 days’ time has to be granted. He further submitted that in the instance case on hand, no such time has been granted.

¶26

He further submitted that the respondent

¶27

No.2 called the tender for the year 2017-18 and tender process was completed in the month of March 2017 and supply order has been issued in the month of March 2018 and in the middle of the year, a fresh tender notification has been called only with an intention to cause greater injustice and hardship to the petitioner. He further submitted that he has invested crores of rupees and has stored the material and at this juncture, if fresh tender is allotted, then it is going to cause

¶28

¶29

injustice to the petitioner. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the writ petition and to quash the notification dated 17.10.2018.

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently argued and submitted that the tender notification issued earlier for the year 2017-18 and after completion of the said academic year, fresh tender has been called for. He further submitted that as per the clause (f) of the Instructions to the Bidders that the purchasers are having a right to reduce or extend the period of the said tender. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has extended the period of supply till opening of the fresh tenders and he further submitted that opening of the technical bid is today itself and he is not having further instructions. He further submitted that as per Rule 17(2) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 the Authorized Officer is having power to even

¶31

¶32

reduce the time stipulated under sub Rule (1) and accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.1 has reduced the time and the tender notification has been called. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner will not survive for consideration. On these grounds, learned Additional Government Advocate prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶33

I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and I have perused the records.

¶34

The records indicate that the tender for the

¶35

year 2017-18 was called and tender process were completed in March 2017. Thereafter, the supply order has been issued by respondent No.1 on 20.03.2018 to supply the material till further orders. Now as per Annexure – E, the respondent No.2 has called the fresh

¶36

¶37

tender for supply of food and other materials to premetric, post-metric hostels, residential schools and P.U.College, coming under the Minority Welfare Department and even the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner has also applied for participation in the said tender and even respondent No.1 has issued the orders to the effect that till the tender is processed and opened, the petitioner has to supply the material as per the earlier tender and accordingly, he has accepted the same and supplied the material. When the first tender itself clearly indicates the fact that it was for the year 2017-18 and even the work order which is issued on 20.03.2018 clearly indicates the fact that till further orders petitioner has to supply the said material. Then under such circumstances, the second tender which has been called for the year 2018-19 is not having any prejudice or hardship to the petitioner, that too when she herself

¶38

¶39

has participated in the tender by applying the tender application thereafter.

¶40

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.

¶41

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶42

Jm/Rsh/-

Ashwini Trading Company v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Trading Company v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt.Priyadarshini Vs Pramod

Gurappa Nandeppa Malagundi Vs the Cheif Election Commissioner

Sri. Jayant S/O. Fakkirappa Gulenavar, Vs Sri. Shankerappa S/O. Peerappa Gulenavar

Shri.Shrishail S/O Shivamurtayya Dhupadalmath Vs Shri.Mahaning S/O Appanna Bangennavar

M/S. Go World Office Vs the University of Agricultural Sciences

Shri. Nandkumar Vs Shri. Parasharam