Dismissed

One Roof Solutions v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2020WP/101972/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a firm that applied for an e-tender, challenged the cancellation of the tender process for data entry operators filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held the writ petition not maintainable as the State Government validly invoked Section 4(g) of the Act to exclude Chapter II-A, challenging only the cancellation and not the underlying exemption notification

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the notification issued under Section 4(g) of the Act, rendering the petition not maintainable.

One Roof Solutions Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.No.101972/2020 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

ONE ROOF SOLUTIONS PROPRIETOR NAGTILAK GANIKOP, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR, PLOT NO.357, CTS NO.10412, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVBASAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.

¶8

.....PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI VITTHAL S TELI, ADV)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPERSENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOTE, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, ATALJI JANASNEHI KENDRA PROJECT K.R. CIRCLE, COMMISSIONER FOR

¶14

¶15

LAND REVENUE AND LAND RECORD, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

…..RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA)

¶18

THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER CHAPTER III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-D, this writ petition is filed.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a

¶23

registered firm carrying on business in the name and style as ‘One Roof Solutions’. It is providing data operators, security agencies etc. all over Karnataka State. Second respondent

¶24

has called for e-tender notification for data entry operators for

¶25

¶26

respondent No.3 at Hobli level for Bagalkot District on 09.09.2019. The petitioner firm applied for the bid through e- procurement process. The second respondent opened the technical bid and thereafter without any justification and reasons, cancelled the tender process on 26.11.2019. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the same.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has no right to cancel the tender notification for data entry operators for the third respondent and the same is contrary to Section 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short).

¶29

Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that

¶30

as per the terms and conditions of the tender notification, the respondent without assigning reasons can cancel the tender notification in its entirety. He further submits that second

¶31

¶32

respondent reserved right for cancellation in terms of the tender without assigning reasons and subsequently issued notification under Section 4(g) of the Act, 1999. Thus, providing an exemption under Section 4(g) of the Act, work order has been issued in favour of Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. on 24.12.2019. The said Corporation is also a Government undertaking. The said Corporation has already undertaken the work as per the work order dated 24.12.2019. According to the terms and conditions of the notification, the second respondent has cancelled the tender. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶33

Perused the records and considered the

¶34

submissions on both the sides.

¶35

Second respondent has issued a tender notification

¶36

inviting tender for data entry operators for the third respondent institution and the petitioner firm had applied for tender through e-procurement. The second respondent has

¶37

¶38

cancelled the e-tender notification and the petitioner has challenged the said cancellation in this writ petition. It is no doubt true that initially project was to be executed under the provisions of Chapter II-A of the Act which deals with e- procurement. The second respondent resolved to entrust project to the Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. which is a Government undertaking, on 06.12.2019 and accordingly handed over the project for its execution. The second respondent has issued work order to the Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. on 24.12.2019. The State Government has invoked Clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act. If there is any invocation of any Clause of Section 4 of the Act, it would be on the basis of the circumstances which are mentioned in each of those Clauses. Clause (g) of Section 4 reads as under:

¶39

4. Exceptions to applicability.— The provisions of Chapter II shall not apply to Procurement of goods and services.—

(a) xxx

(b) xxx

(c) xxx

(d) xxx

(e) xxx

(f) xxx

(g) In respect of specific procurements as may be notified by the Government from time to time;

¶48

A reading of Section 4 makes it clear that the

¶49

object of Section is to exclude Chapter II from the

¶50

procurement of certain goods, services having regard to the circumstances mentioned in those clauses. Section 4 is a tender exception to the Chapter II of the Act.

¶51

A perusal of the Chapter II would indicate that the

¶52

Sections therein regulate procurement of goods and services by procurement and entity. The object of that Chapter is to bring transparency in the matter of procurement of goods and services.

¶53

¶54

10. Chapter II-A has been inserted by the Act No.13 of

¶55

2007 and is deemed to have come into force with effect from 27.11.2006. Chapter II-A dealing with E-procurement contains Section 18-A which reads as under:

¶56

18-A. E-Procurement .—(1) There shall be a single unified e-procurement platform for all procurement entity which may be notified under sub-section (2).

¶57

(2) With effect from such date, as may be specified by the Government, by notification, a procurement entity in respect of a class of procurement, if any, as may be notified shall procure its procurements through the e- procurement platform.

¶58

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may make rules, for specifying a separate procedure to be followed by procurement entities notified under sub-section (2) for e- procurement through e-procurement platform; and for non-application of other procedure of procurement to e-procurement.

¶59

¶60

The object of insertion of Section 18-A of the Act is to bring in the method of e-procurement in the matter of e- procurement of goods and services by procurement entity. Sub-section 3 of Section 18A states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Government may make rules for specifying a separate procedure to be followed by the procurement entities notified under sub-section (2) for e- procurement through e-procurement platform and nonapplication of procedure of e-procurement.

¶61

In this case, we are not concerned as to whether the procedure as contemplated under Chapter II are to comply or procedures as contemplated under Chapter II-A has to be complied. The question herein is as to whether Section 4 of the Act, the State Government would exclude not only Chapter II but also Chapter II-A of the Act.

¶62

In the present case, the State Government has invoked Clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act which states in respect of specific procurements as may be notified by the

¶63

¶64

Government from time to time. The first respondent has issued a notification on 06.12.2019 as per Annexure-R2 produced by the learned Addl. Government Advocate and after issuing notification, the second respondent has issued work order to the Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. on 24.12.2019. The petitioner has not challenged the notification issued under Clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act and also work order issued to the said Corporation. As far as the reason for issuing notification under Clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act is concerned, it is the wisdom of the State Government for notifying. Unless the petitioner challenges the notification issued under Clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act, the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition. In the instant case, the invocation of Clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act is only to handover the project to the Government agency i.e., to the said Corporation which is a government agency which is an entity furnished under the control of first respondent. As observed above, the petitioner has not challenged the notification issued under clause (g) of

¶65

10 -

¶66

Section 4 of the Act and also work order issued to the said Corporation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and further the said Corporation has already commenced the work as per the work order issued to it. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Naa

One Roof Solutions v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

One Roof Solutions 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Saw Mill Vs the Chief Conservator of Forest

Rajeshwari W/O Rajashekhar Ballari Vs National Highwa Auathority of India

Kallappa Murugeppa Awati Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar Vs the Secretary

The New Vijaya Recreation Club (R) Vs State of Karnataka