Partly allowed

M/S Thematics Infotech Pvt. Ltd., v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2021WA/68/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Single Judge's order in a tender dispute. The Court held bills for 31 completed works must be paid and vacated an interim stay on such payments. It further directed authorities to award remaining work orders based on bid merits.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 27.01.2020 restraining payment of bills vacated; respondents directed to expedite payment for 31 completed works and consider bidder merits for remaining work orders.

M/S Thematics Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

W.A.No.68/2020 (GM – TEN)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/s Thematics Infotech Pvt. Ltd., A private limited Company registered Under the Companies Act having its Office at No.10 & 11, 2^nd floor, NAT Street, Gandhibazar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri. Raju M.S. … Appellant (By Sri.Gangadharaiah A.N., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Squares, Bengaluru – 560 027.

¶13

The Executive Engineer (Projects) East Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road, 21^st Floor, P.U.B.Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

The Special Commissioner (Project), Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Squares, Bengaluru – 560 027.

¶16

M/s. Geometry Engineers and Consultants, No.50(38/1), 2^nd Floor, Serpentine Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. Represented by its Partner, Sri. Amarnath Hegde, S/o Sri.K.Shankar Hegde, Aged about 56 years … Respondents

¶17

(By Sri. K.N.PPuttegowda, Advocate for R-1 to R-3(VC), Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., Advocate for R-4 )

¶18

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to stay the operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.20698/2019 dated 03/01/2020, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, NAGARATHNA, J ., delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

I.A.No.1/2020 has been filed by respondent No.4 seeking vacating of interim order dated 27.01.2020 granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court restraining the respondent – Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for brevity herein after

¶22

¶23

referred to as “BBMP”) from paying any amount to respondent No.4 until further orders. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel and learned Senior counsel for the respective parties on the merits of the matter.

¶24

Briefly stated the facts are that, the appellant as well as respondent No.4 herein apart from M/s Alcon Consulting Engineers Private limited had submitted their respective bids pursuant to tender notification dated 22.02.2017 and Corrigendum dated 27.0.2017. The date for opening of the technical bids was on 08.05.2017. All the three bidders were successful. Financial bids were also opened. On the same day, technical bids were opened and work orders in respect of initial 28 works were given to the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 herein. Subsequently, three work orders were also given, totalling 31 work orders. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant herein had preferred an appeal before the Special Commissioner (Projects), B.B.M.P. This was pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.49011/2018 filed by the appellant herein assailing the awarding of work orders to respondent No.4 herein. The said writ petition was, disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant herein to file an appeal. That is

¶25

¶26

how the appeal was filed before the Special Commissioner, (Projects) BBMP.

¶27

It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 herein, who was awarded the tender and granted 31 work orders was also heard by the appellate authority and ultimately, by order dated 07.03.2019, award of tender to respondent No.4 herein was cancelled and it was directed that the tender should be awarded to the appellant herein.

¶28

Being aggrieved, respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.20698/2019 before this Court. Learned Single Judge by

¶29

order dated 03.01.2020 set aside the cancellation of the work order insofar as 31 works already completed by respondent No.4 herein and also directed the BBMP to payup bills in respect of 31 completed works expeditiously. It was also ordered that issuance of work orders to respondent No.4 in respect of other works would not in any way be a impediment. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.

¶30

During the course of submissions, it has been brought to our notice that in respect of 31 work orders, respondent No.4 has already completed the work and bills have been submitted

¶31

¶32

and payments are due. It is, at this stage, that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court pursuant to the impugned order, passed an interim order restraining the payment of bills and hence, an application I.A.No.1/2020 has been filed seeking vacating of the interim order and same may be vacated.

¶33

In the circumstances, while hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that appellant cannot have any dispute with regard to awarding of 31 work orders to respondent No.4 at this stage, since respondent No.4 has already completed the said works and payments are due to them.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal is filed by being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that insofar as other work orders to be granted, having regard to the fact that the appellant – authority had cancelled the tender awarded to respondent No.4 and only 31 work orders under the said order have been awarded to the said respondent, insofar as the other work orders are concerned, the case of the appellant may also be taken note of. In that regard, it was contended by

¶35

¶36

the appellant’s counsel that appellant was the lowest bidder and that respondent No.4 was not all the lowest bidder and secondly, there are other infirmities in the bid submitted by respondent No.4. Therefore, appropriate direction may be issued to the BBMP – respondents No.1 to 3 herein, insofar as awarding of other work orders under tender notification dated 22.02.2017 are concerned.

¶37

Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that there can now be no dispute with regard to 31 work orders already completed and but, for the interim stay granted by this Court in this appeal, payment would also have been made. Therefore, the interim order may be vacated and writ appeal may be disposed. Appellant cannot have any objection with regard to the direction issued to the respondents - BBMP to expedite the payment of bills in respect of 31 work orders, which have been executed by the respondent No.4 herein.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 - BBMP submitted that order of the learned Single Judge and direction issued therein shall be complied.

¶39

¶40

Be that as it may. We observe that since the tender insofar respondent No.4 was cancelled by the appellantauthority, but, by then 28 + 3=31 work orders had already been issued and with the passage of time, said work orders were also executed, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to expedite payment of the said bills raised by respondent No.4 is sustained. The respondent-authorities to expedite the payment on the bills raised by respondent No.4. The appellant can have no grievance with regard to that aspect of the matter.

¶41

However, the significant aspect of the matter is that the cancellation of the tender insofar respondent No.4 is concerned, has not been really interfered with by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has observed that his order would not come in the way of issuing any work order to respondent No.4 in respect of the works other than the remaining works. Insofar as that is concerned, we direct respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the inter se merit of the bidders and to award work orders accordingly pursuant to the tender notification dated 22.02.2017.

¶42

With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed.

¶43

¶44

In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2020 stands disposed and interim order granted on 27.01.2020 is vacated.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Psg*

M/S Thematics Infotech Pvt. Ltd., v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Thematics Infotech Pvt. Ltd., v. the Commissioner

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

Dr Ca a S Vishnu Bharath Vs State of Karnataka

Samarpana (Cultural and Social Service Organisation) Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Mallikarjuna M M Vs Smt Nagashree

Sri. Manoj Naik Vs Manohar Nagappa Naik

Sri Vinayaka Education Society (Regd) Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri S Raghunathan Vs Union of India