Dismissed

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

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2018WP/107143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging the refusal to permit a petitioner to carry out a work order based on a public procurement tender was filed. The court found that the petitioner failed to furnish the required security deposit and execute the agreement, leading to the cancellation of the work order and refund of the deposit. The petition was dismissed as no legal grounds existed to allow the work whe

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue other legal remedies if available.

M/S. Go World Office Vs the University of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.107143/2018 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. GO WORLD OFFICE OFFICE AT FLAT NO.1, SUNFLOWER APARTMENT, OPP ST. ANDREWS CHURCH, VASCO DA-GAMA, SOUTH GOA, GOA-403 802, PROT MR.MUNEER SHAIKH.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN PRABHAKAR TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES BELAGAVI ROAD, KRISHI NAGAR, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA-580005, REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.

¶13

THE ESTATE OFFICER THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, BELAGAVI ROAD, KRISHI NAGAR, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA-580005.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) ---

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT THE WORK AS PER THE PROCEED WITH WORK ORDER DATED 09.10.2018 BEARING NO.EO/DB/WO/84/2018-19 AT ANNEXURE-"C" AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Learned counsel Sri. K. L. Patil submits that he will

¶20

also put in his appearance for respondents 1 and 2. He is permitted to file Vakalath.

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying this Court to issue appropriate direction to the respondents directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to carryout the work as per the proceed with the work order dated 09.10.2018 bearing No.EP/DB/WO/184/2018-19 at Annexure-C and also to issue mandamus directing the Vigilance Committee to conduct an enquiry for the inaction of the respondents for not permitting the petitioner to carry out the work as per proceed with work order by submitting the final report before this Court.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶23

¶24

The gist of the case is that, on 27.01.2018, the respondent-University called a short term e-procurement tender notification bearing No.EO/DB/TN/ePro.AIT/2018-19, for supplying the service of luxury buses on hire basis (Local Transport) to the students of the University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad for All India Tour for 11 batches. It is further submitted that the petitioner participated in the said tender and as there were no other bidders, the respondent-University decided to call for second tender notification and the petitioner also applied for the second time tender. The said respondent after negotiation with the Estate Officer addressed the letter of acceptance to the petitioner accepting the petitioner’s tender and requesting him to furnish security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent-University and he has to execute an agreement in this behalf for supplying the service of luxury buses on hire basis. It is further submitted that, as per the proceed with the work order issued by the respondent-University, the petitioner has booked the first

¶25

¶26

tour to the students scheduled on 23.10.2018. After allotting the work order, the petitioner prepared entire year program for all the 11 batches as per the tender notification. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the respondents are permitting the petitioner to carryout the work as per the work order issued by them nor they have cancelled the work order, but they are not allowing the petitioner to carry out the work. On these grounds he prays to allow the petition and direct the respondent to permit him to carry out the work.

¶27

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶28

the respondents that, as per the terms and conditions, the petitioner has not furnished the security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- and he has also not executed the agreement which ought to have been entered into to carry out the work within the stipulated time and as such that work order has been cancelled and even the EMD amount has also been refunded to the petitioner on 15.09.2018. He further submitted that the petitioner has not made out

¶29

¶30

any case so as to grant the relief as prayed for. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶31

I have carefully and cautiously gone through submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also perused the records.

¶32

As per Annexure-C, the work order has been

¶33

issued to the petitioner with the condition that the petitioner has to give security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/and has to enter into an agreement for supplying the service of luxury buses on hire basis as per the conditions of the tender. Thereafter he was also instructed to proceed with the services of the said works in accordance with the contract documents. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not furnished the security deposit as per the condition imposed and has also not executed the agreement in this behalf. But it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has furnished the security deposit and he has entered into an

¶34

¶35

agreement. Though he furnished the security, but he has not produced any document before the Court to show that he has executed the agreement. On perusal of the records, no such agreement is forthcoming and if he has entered into an agreement as per the stipulations, he could have definitely produced the same. Thus there is violation of the tender conditions and if the petitioner has not adhered to the tender conditions, which have been imposed by the respondent-University, the respondent is at liberty to cancel the said tender and proceed in accordance with law. It is submitted that already security deposit has been refunded to the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. When already there is cancellation of the said contract, the question of granting the prayer does not arise at all. Petitioner has not challenged the said cancellation order before any authority.

¶36

In the light of the discussion held by me above, the petitioner has not made out any grounds to

¶37

¶38

allow the petition and to issue any direction. If at all any remedy is available legally, he may pursue the same in accordance with law.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

gab

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Ashwini Trading Company Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Nandkumar Vs Shri. Parasharam