Partly allowed

Mr S M Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2019WP/26629/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement cancelling a quarrying tender despite being a qualified bidder. The Court found the endorsement issued based on a meritless District Committee decision without issuing a provisional acceptance letter. The endorsement was set aside and directions given to follow statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 6.6.2017 set aside; direction to issue provisional acceptance letter and submit to District Committee with records for confirmation within two months.

Mr S M Shivakumar Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.26629 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. S.M. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O. SRI. MUNIGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDANDODDI VILLAGE T. GOLLAHATTI POST UYYAMBALLI HOBLI KANAKAPUR TALUK RAMANAGAR-571511

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

¶13

DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001

¶14

¶15

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313. CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT

¶16

DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE HEADED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DTD.06.06.2017, ISSUED BY 4^TH RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

¶22

DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petition is called out for final hearing.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On 18^th January, 2017, the third and fourth respondents invited bids from eligible persons in respect of the schedule property for grant of quarrying lease for removal of ordinary sand from persons belonging to ‘physically disabled’ category. Along with five other candidates, the petitioner was declared as a qualified bidder. Subsequently, live bid process of the auction was conducted where, according to the petitioner, he gave an offer of 118.5% above Royalty charges. It is stated that the petitioner was called by the third and fourth respondents for negotiations and to ascertain whether he is willing to increase the bid amount.

¶27

According to the case of the petitioner, he showed willingness to increase the bid amount from Rs.131/- per metric tonne to Rs.400/- per metric tonne. On 6^th June, 2017, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner by the membersecretary of the District Sand Monitoring Committee of the concerned district stating that the District Committee has

¶28

¶29

decided to cancel the tender. The challenge in this writ petition is to the said endorsement.

¶30

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that on a conjoint reading of Rules 31-T and 31-V of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the said Rules’), the highest bidder should be given a provisional acceptance letter either by the Deputy Director or the Senior Geologist and thereafter, the said officer shall forthwith submit the bid to the District Sand Monitoring Committee (for short, ‘the District Committee’) established under sub-rule (1) of Rule 31-R of the said Rules of 1994. Inviting our attention to the minutes of the meeting of the District Committee, he submitted that there is no decision recorded to cancel the existing bid. He submitted that the impugned endorsement has been issued only on the basis of the decision of the District Committee in its meeting held on 17^th May, 2017. He would, therefore, submit that no decision of accepting the bid has yet been taken by the State Government as there is no opinion of the District Sand Monitoring Committee.

¶31

The learned High Court Government Pleader pointed out that in the present case, the District Committee has

¶32

¶33

suggested that an opinion of the Government be sought. He would further submit that the final decision to cancel the tender process is taken in public interest and therefore, no interference is called for.

¶34

We have given careful considerations to the submissions made. We have perused Rules 31-T and 31-V of the said Rules of 1994 dealing with bids. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 31-T provides that a qualified bidder who submits the highest final price offer shall be declared as the successful bidder. Subrule (10) of Rule 31-T provides that a provisional acceptance letter shall be issued to the successful bidder by the Deputy Director or Senior Geologist upon approval of the e-auction from the District Committee. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 31-V contemplates confirmation of provisional acceptance by the District Committee.

¶35

In the present case, the impugned endorsement dated 6^th June, 2017 has been made only on the basis of the decision/approval of the District Committee dated 17^th May, 2017. A perusal of the said report shows that firstly, a provisional letter of acceptance was not issued to the petitioner and secondly, perusal of the minutes of the District Committee

¶36

¶37

meeting shows that there was no decision on the issue of confirmation of the acceptance of the bid. It appears from the minutes of the meeting of the District Committee that it has not at all considered the question of granting confirmation of the provisional acceptance letter issued by the Deputy Director or Senior Geologist. Even in the objections filed by the respondents, no such material is placed on record.

¶38

Thus, it appears to us that the District Committee has not taken any decision either way, whether to confirm the auction or otherwise. Moreover, the provisional acceptance letter is also not issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition succeeds in part and we proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The endorsement dated 6^th June, 2017 is hereby set aside;

¶41

(ii) We direct the third or fourth respondent to issue a provisional letter of acceptance to the petitioner in terms of sub-rule (10) of Rule 31-T and the same shall be forthwith submitted to the District Committee along with the records of the entire process;

¶42

¶43

(iii) After the Deputy Director or Senior Geologist refers the case to the District Committee, the said Committee shall endeavour to decide the issue of confirmation within a period of two months from the date on which the application is submitted to the District Committee;

¶44

(iv) The District Committee shall pass an appropriate

¶45

order under sub-rule (7) of Rule 31-V of the said Rules;

¶46

(v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the auction process except giving directions to the officers to take steps in accordance with Rules 31-T and 31-V of the said Rules of 1994;

¶47

(vi) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

vgh*

Mr S M Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S M Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka

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

K S Anil Vs M/S. Yuktee Patel Transport Private Limited

Sri. S K Pawar Vs the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation

Smt Radha Vs the Tahasildar

The Residents Neighbours of Vs Quipo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd.

National Enviornment Care Federation Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Rajendra Vs the State of Karnataka