Dismissed

M/S Sri Ranganath Electricals v. Bangalore Electricity

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2021WP/159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a tender bid by the petitioner. The judgment upheld the rejection as the petitioner was blacklisted by MESCOM but falsely declared in the tender application that he was not disqualified.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as petitioner stood disqualified for not disclosing blacklist status.

M/S Sri Ranganath Electricals Vs Bangalore… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.159 OF 2021 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M/S. SRI RANGANATH ELECTRICALS AT NO.546, 2 B MAIN ROAD 2^ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072

¶8

REPRESENTED BY SRI. VINAYAK PATIL S/O LATE KRISHNA RAO PATIL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.546 2 B MAIN ROAD 2^ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072 PROJECT MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY M/S SRI RANGANATH ELECTRICALS ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SHRI. KANTHARAJA FOR SHRI. H.K. RAVI, ADVOCATES) [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

¶10

AND :

¶11

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM), HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT K.R.CIRLCE BENGALULRU-560 009

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENT

¶13

¶14

(BY SHRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE) [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.2020 (AS PER THE E-PROCUREMENT PORTAL INFORMATION AT HTTPS/EPROC.KARNATAKA.GOV.IN/ EPROCUREMENT/ LOGOFF.SEAM) VIDE ANNEXURE-A REJECTING THE BID OF THE PETITINER BEARING NO.B4066631 IN RESPECT OF THE TENDER ENQUIRY NOBESCOM/BCP-1245/2020-21/HARIHARA AND ETC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.01.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard Shri. Kantharaja, learned Advocate for petitioner

¶19

and Shri. S. Sriranga, learned Advocate for respondent.

¶20

Petitioner is an Electrical Contractor. He has challenged rejection of his tender for execution of CAPEX Works in Harihara Division for two years.

¶21

Shri. Kantharaja submitted that respondent has

¶22

rejected petitioner's bid submitted on November 1, 2020 without proper application of mind and prayed that a direction be issued to reconsider petitioner's bid.

¶23

¶24

Shri. Sriranga, for respondent submitted that:

¶25

Petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act' for short);

¶26

Petitioner has been black-listed by MESCOM. He has filed a false undertaking as per Annexure-R3 that petitioner was not black-listed;

¶27

As claimed in the writ petition, petitioner's tender has not been rejected on December 1, 2020, but on November 20, 2020 on the e-portal. Having come to know of the rejection, petitioner submitted a letter dated 17.11.2020 on 25.11.2020 enclosing a copy of the stay order issued by this Court in W.P. No.11953/2020. In the tender document (Annexure-C) the qualifying requirements are clearly mentioned. As per Clause 11, bidders are required to upload a self-declaration with regard to black-listing, if any. Petitioner has been black-listed by MESCOM. This crucial information has not been uploaded at the time of filing the tender documents.

¶28

¶29

In reply, Shri. Kantharaja submitted that black-

¶30

listing is confined to only for the works under MESCOM. The subject matter of this writ petition is for the tender work called for by BESCOM. He further submitted that the alternative remedy under Section 16 of KTPP Act is not efficacious. Petitioner has brought to the notice of respondent the stay order passed by this Court with regard to black-listing. Accordingly, he prayed that respondent may be directed to re-consider petitioner's case.

¶31

Shri. Sriranga is right in his submission that Clause 11 of the Tender document makes it clear that a bidder shall be disqualified if he is black-listed due to nonperformance of any work with any Public Electrical Utility or Government Utility as on the date of bid submission. In

¶32

Annexure -R3 dated November 3, 2020, petitioner has categorically stated that he was not disqualified. Petitioner has subsequently submitted a letter dated November 17, 2020 enclosing a copy of the stay order in the matter of black-listing. The inward seal of respondent's office shows

¶33

¶34

that the letter was received on November 25, 2020. The stay order is dated October 23, 2020. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has given an incorrect undertaking as per Annexure-R3.

¶35

Therefore, no exception can be taken to the rejection of petitioner's tender as he stood disqualified for not disclosing the fact that he was black-listed. Both BESCOM and MESCOM are electricity distribution Companies. The tender condition is unambiguous that if a bidder is disqualified by any Public Electrical Utility, he shall be disqualified.

¶36

In view of the above, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶37

No costs.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

SPS

M/S Sri Ranganath Electricals v. Bangalore Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Ranganath Electricals v. Bangalore Electricity

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

Chinnahalli Milk Producers Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P.P.Muhammed Vs Union Bank of India

G. Ashok Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Haseena Begum Vs Mukrum Pasha

Mohamed Akarma Vs Union of India

Sri Mariswamy Vs the State of Karnataka