Dismissed

Mr R Shivaram v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2021WP/162/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed two writ petitions filed by MSW contractors. The petitioners sought to quash tender notifications and direct the BBMP to issue LOAs. The court held that the petitions failed as the bid validity had expired, and the tender was delayed, not warranting judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed; no directions were issued to the BBMP.

Mr R Shivaram Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.1128 OF 2021 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.162 OF 2021(GM-TEN)

¶8

IN W.P. No.1128/2021

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

MR. VINAY KUMAR

¶11

S/O P. PURANDHARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.9, 17^TH CROSS VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT OLD MADIWALA

¶12

BANGALORE-560 068

¶13

M/S NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. PROP. MR. P. VINODH KUMAR S/O P. PURANDHARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.57/52, COMFORT ENCLAVE 7^TH MAIN, 17^TH CROSS BTM LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE

¶14

BANGALORE-560 076

¶15

M/S. SRI. SIDDI VINAYAKA PRASANNA PROP. MR. P. PURANDHARA REDDY S/O LATE P. CHINNATHAMBI REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS NO.9, 17^TH CROSS

¶16

VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT OLD MADIWALA BANGALORE-560 068

¶17

M/S. PRAKRUTHI ENTERPRISES PROP. MR. P. VIDYA NATH REDDY S/O P. CHANGA REDDY

¶18

¶19

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶20

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.10, 32^ND MAIN 5^TH CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY BMT 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 068

¶21

M/S. UDAY KIRAN ENTERPRISES PROP. P. SARASWATHI W/O LATE DURUVASULU REDDY AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS NO.1090, 8^TH CROSS BTM LAYOUT 1^ST STAGE 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560 029

¶22

M/S. VARSHINI ENTERPRISES PROP. MR. P. VIKRAM DEVA REDDY S/O LATE DURUVASULU REDDY AEE ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.8, BEHIND SANDHYA TENT OLD MADIWALA BANGALORE-560 068

¶23

M/S. SRP CORPORATION PROP. MR SRI E RAMANA REDDY S/O LATE VENOGOPAL REDDY AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.10, 32^ND MAIN

¶24

5^TH CROSS, DOLLORS COLONY BTM 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 068

¶25

MR. P. VITTAL NATHA REDDY S/O P. CHANGA REDDY AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.79, 1^ST MAIN MICO LAYOUT BTM 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 076

¶26

M/S. OM SAI VENURES MR. P. ANAND VARDHAN REDDY S/O P. JANARDHAN REDDY AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.401/4, 14^TH MAIN ROAD VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT

¶27

¶28

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶29

MADIWALA

¶30

BANGALORE-560 068 ... PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SHRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SHRI. A. MAHAMAD TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND :

¶33

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SOUDHA

¶34

BANGALORE-560 001

¶35

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶36

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶37

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶38

N.R.SQUARE

¶39

BANGALORE-560 002

¶40

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT N.R.SQUARE

¶41

BANGALORE-560 002

¶42

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HEALTH AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BBMP, N.R.SQUARE

¶43

BANGALORE-560 002

¶44

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT-1 3^RD FLOOR, ANNEX BUILDING BBMP, N.R.SQUARE

¶45

BANGALORE-560 002 ... RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SHRI. M. VINOD KUMAR AGA FOR R1; SHRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5)

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 21.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-5 AT ANNEXURE-N AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO ISSUE FRESH LOA BY

¶48

¶49

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶50

GRANTING 30 DAYS TIME FOR SUBMITTING PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND WORK ORDERS TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.68 AND 72, PETITIONER NO.2 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.64, PETITIONER NO.3 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.172, PETITIONER NO.4 IN RESPECT WARD NO.65 AND 152, PETITIONER NO.5 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.98, PETITIONER NO.6 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.84 PETITIONER NO.7 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.66, PETITIONER NO.8 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.76 AND 118 AND PETITIONER NO.9 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.25.

¶51

IN W.P. NO.162/2021

¶52

BETWEEN :

¶53

MR. R. SHIVARAM S/O LATE C. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.4/13, AVALAMMMA CHOUTRY LAYOUT MAGADI ROAD

¶54

BANGALORE-560 023

¶55

MR. GANESH C.N S/O NAGABHUSHANAM C.O AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.15, 4^TH CROSS OBLESH COLONY JJR NAGAR

¶56

BANGALORE-560 018

¶57

MR. VASUDEV M. GUNTAPALLI S/O MUTHYALAPPA GUNTAPALLI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶58

NO.758, FLAT NO.104 ATMEEYA GELEYARA BALAGA CHIKKASUNDRA

¶59

HESARAGATTA ROAD

¶60

BANGALORE-560 090 ... PETITIONERS

¶61

(BY SHRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SHRI. A. MAHAMAD TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶62

¶63

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶64

AND :

¶65

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶66

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶67

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE

¶68

BANGALORE-560 002

¶69

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002

¶70

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HEALTH AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BBMP, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002

¶71

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT-1 3^RD FLOOR, ANNEX BUILDING BBMP, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002 ... RESPONDENTS

¶72

(BY SHRI. M. VINOD KUMAR AGA FOR R1; SHRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5)

¶73

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-5 AT ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO ISSUE LOA AND WORK ORDERS TO THE PETITONERS NO.1 IN RESEPCT OF WARD NO.12 AND 13, PETITONER NO.2 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.12 AND 13, PETITONER NO.2 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.71 AND 91 AND PETITONER NO.3 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.14.

¶74

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶75

¶76

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶77

ORDER

¶78

Petitioners are MSW¹ contractors. On January 18, 2019, BBMP² called for tenders for collection and transportation of segregated wet waste etc. Petitioners participated in the tender for different wards of BBMP. In the BBMP website, they were shown as 'L1' bidders against their respective tenders. However, LOA³ were not given to them by the BBMP. Some similarly situated contractors filed writ petitions⁴ in this Court and the same have been disposed of by the common order dated February 20, 2020. After

¶79

disposal of the said writ petitions, BBMP has issued LOA to several contractors excluding the petitioners herein. BBMP has again called for tender vide Notification dated December 21, 2020 (Annexure-N). Hence, this writ petition

¶80

1 Municipal Solid Waste

¶81

2 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

¶82

3 Letters of Acceptance

¶83

4 M/s. Ganesh Shankar Environmental Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.38069/2019 and connected cases

¶84

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶85

¶86

with a prayer inter alia to quash fresh tender Notification and to direct BBMP to issue LOA.

¶87

Shri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior

¶88

Advocate for petitioners, in substance, submitted that BBMP has issued LOA to the petitioners with only 15 days time to furnish Bank Guarantee and details of vehicles and manpower, where as several similarly situated contractors have been given 30 days. This amounts to discrimination.

¶89

Shri. K.N. Puttegowda, learned Advocate for

¶90

BBMP submitted that BBMP has right to accept or reject any bid as per clause 2.6.1 of RFP⁵ . Further, as per clause 2.17, the validity of the bid is for 180 days and stood expired on July 17, 2019. Petitioners have not extended the period of their bid. However, BBMP has given LOA to the petitioners in November 2020.

¶91

I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

¶92

5 Request for proposal

¶93

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶94

¶95

It is not in dispute that the previous tender was

¶96

called on January 18, 2019. As per Clause 2.17 of RFP, the bid shall be valid for 180 days and can be extended by mutual consent. It is also not in dispute that some of the contractors had approached this Court in writ petitions mentioned supra, which have been disposed of on February 20, 2020.

¶97

Petitioners have annexed copies of the LOA issued to the petitioners as per Annexures - B1, C1, D1, E1, F1, G1, H1 and J1 series and Annexures K1 & K2. They are all issued during November 2020. Shri. Patil contended that as per LOA only 15 days' time was granted to the petitioners to furnish performance security, where as in the case of other Contractors, BBMP has given 30 days. Replying to these contentions, BBMP's case is, after receipt of LOA, petitioners did not seek for any extension. Petitioners are not new to the field and as a matter of fact,

¶98

they have been working as contractors with the BBMP for several years.

¶99

W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021

¶100

¶101

In the conspectus of facts recorded hereinabove,

¶102

these writ petitions must fail on more than one count. Firstly, petitioners who have submitted their bids have not extended the period beyond 180 days. Secondly, the RFP was issued in January 2019 and a batch of writ petitions were disposed of in February 2020. Though it is admitted that petitioners did learn about the fact that they were L1, they did not choose to challenge respondent's action for nearly one year from the date of disposal of the writ petitions. Thirdly, petitioners have not sought extension of time after receiving the LOA.

¶103

The tenders are for management of solid waste

¶104

by the City Corporation. It is an important work and has a direct bearing on the health of residents of the city. BBMP has already called for fresh tenders. In the facts and circumstances, petitioners' case does not warrant interference by exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

W.P. No.1128/2021

C/W W.P. No.162/2021

9. Resultantly, these petitions fail and they are

¶109

accordingly dismissed .

¶110

No costs.

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

SPS

Mr R Shivaram v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr R Shivaram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Babu Poojary Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Naresh Vittal Rao Pise Vs the Authorised Officer

M/S. Y.G.K. Infra India Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Chief Manager/Authorized Officer

Sri Bhaskar S Vs Uco Bank

Mr. Vinay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Karnataka