Dismissed

M/S.Arjun Traders v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2019WA/100539/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal arises from dismissal of a writ petition seeking to quash a tender for hostel supplies due to alleged delay in publishing current rates before financial bid opening. The Court observed that rates were published well before the bid opening, found the clause complied, noted the appellant's failure to object earlier, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed by the appellant setting aside the single judge's order dismissing the writ petition was dismissed.

M/S.Arjun Traders Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.100539/2019 (GM- TEN)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S.ARJUN TRADERS C.B.S. GUNJ, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, REP. BY ITS PROP: SRI.BASAVARAJ S/O AYYANGOUDA, AGE: 42 YEARS.

¶11

... APPELLANT.

¶12

(BY SRI C S PATIL, ADVOCATE.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, HOSPET ROAD, KOPPAL.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ABI TRADERS BY ITS PROP: S. MANJUNATH S/O S. BASVALINGAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O R.G. ROAD, JULAL NAGAR, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 TO R.3.)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.113144/2019, DATED 21.10.2019, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.,.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, office objection is ignored. Sri C.S.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶25

¶26

The appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard for final disposal.

¶27

In this intra Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.10.2019, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.113144/2019, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶28

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that, on 27.2.2019 a tender notification was issued for supply of food and other materials to Pre-Metric, Post-Metric Hostels, Residential PU College coming under the Minority Welfare Department for Koppal district for the year 2019-20. In response to the aforesaid tender notification, the appellant submitted his bid. On 17.6.2019, respondent No.2 constituted the District Tender Committee. On 18.6.2019, the District Tender Committee sought for current rates

¶29

¶30

by the department taluka officers. After receipt of the list of rates, committee published the rates. Thereafter the financial bid was opened on 21.8.2019.

¶31

After opening of the financial bid, the appellant filed the writ petition before this Court seeking quashment of the tender notification dated 27.2.2019. The learned single Judge, vide order dated 21.10.2019, has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual background the appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant while inviting our attention to Clause 8 of Section IV of the notice inviting tender, submitted that, the committee was required to publish the rates before opening of the financial bid. However the rates were not published before opening of the financial bids, but subsequently, and therefore the

¶33

¶34

tender notification issued by the respondents is liable to be quashed.

¶35

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the learned single Judge and has submitted that, in view of the relief sought by the appellant, the order passed by the learned single Judge does not call for interference.

¶36

We have considered the submissions

¶37

made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Admittedly from the perusal of the averments made in the appeal itself, we find that District Tender Committee published the rates on 18.6.2019 and thereafter the financial bid was opened on 21.8.2019. In other words, there has been compliance of Clause 8 of Section IV of the notice inviting tender. It is also pertinent to mention here that, in case, the rates were not published before opening of the

¶38

¶39

financial bid, the appellant ought to have lodged objection with the committee. Admittedly the appellant has not submitted any objection before the committee before opening of the financial bid. The tender in question has an element of public interest as the same is meant for supply of food to the inmates of the hostels which come under Minority Welfare Department. The appellant has sought the relief of quashment of the tender notification which has rightly not been granted by the learned single Judge.

¶40

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

Mrk/-

M/S.Arjun Traders v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Arjun Traders v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Naseema W/O Abdul Mulla Vs the Department of Primary and

Sri.M.H.Anavati S/O Hasanasab Vs the State of Karnataka

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs Guusiddapp Chanabasappa Ghali

M/S Infotech Computer Educatuion Vs the Karnataka Institute of Medical Science

Chandrashekar Sridhar Naik, Vs the State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs the Principal Secretary