Partly allowed

Sri v. Lakshmikanth v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/3809/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Food Corporation of India's blacklisting order and rejection of tender due to alleged mistake regarding travel distance. Court modified blacklisting duration exempting period already served and directed payment of advertisement costs and token penalty.

What did the court decide?

Blacklisting modified to end with payment of Rs. 50,387/- and Rs. 2 Lakhs penalty; payment directed.

Sri v Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P No.3809/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.3809 OF 2020 (GM-TEN)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI. V. LAKSHMIKANTH S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2^ND MAIN ROAD SUBRAMANYA NAGAR TURUVEKERE TOWN TUMAKURU KARNATAKA-572 227 .... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. P.P. HEGDE FOR SHRI. S.B. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE NO.10, EAST AND END MAIN ROAD 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

W.P No.3809/2020

ZONAL OFFICE

NO.3, HADDOWS ROAD

CHENNAI-600 006

¶20

THE TENDER ACCEPTING COMMITTEE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CUNNINGHAM ROAD SAHAKARA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 001

¶21

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT OF TENDER ACCEPTING COMMITTEE SHIMOGGA-577 201

¶22

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY SHIMOGHA-577 201

¶23

SRI. B. PARASHURAMA S/O LATE BASAVANAPPA M/S. B.S. TRANSPORT WARD NO.12, JOSEPH NAGAR BEHIND CHURCH, SAGAR SHIMOGGA-577 401

¶24

[AMENDED AS PER ORDER

¶25

DATED 09.09.2020] ... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SHRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1, R5 & R6; SHRI. B.S. SRINIVAS FOR SHRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4 -THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE; SHRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTHANAGAOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7;)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDING DATED 27.01.2020 HEADED BY THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE R-5 VIDE ANNX-Q IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

W.P No.3809/2020

ORDER

The Food Corporation of India¹ called for a tenders for transportation of food grains to fair price depots. Petitioner submitted his bid for transportation from RH Amaravathi Colony, Davanagere to the godown. After submitting the bid, he submitted a representation stating that his bid was based on incorrect assumption that the distance to be covered is 5 kms., whereas, petitioner is required to travel 22 kms to reach the destination. Accordingly, he sought for accepting his revised bid or to withdraw. The FCI has black listed petitioner as he has withdrawn his bid.

¶33

Later, petitioner has submitted his tender in response to an tender invitation by the Deputy Commissioner. By order as per Annexure-Q, the Deputy Commissioner has held that petitioner's tender could not be considered as he has been black-listed by the Food Corporation of India.

1 'FCI' for short

W.P No.3809/2020

3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has challenged

¶38

Deputy Commissioner's order as per Annexure-Q and the order passed by the Food Corporation of India black-listing petitioner for five years as per Annexure-C.

¶39

Learned Advocate for petitioner argued that petitioner had submitted the tender on an incorrect assumption that the travel distance is about only 5 kms. This was a bonafide mistake.

¶40

Learned Advocate for respondents argued

¶41

opposing the writ petition.

¶42

I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

¶43

Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner has

¶44

submitted his bid and sought to withdraw the same. He has not deposited the EMD on the ground that petitioner's firm is an MSME. Clause 6 of the Technical bid format issued by the FCI is unambiguous. It provides for forfeiture of the

¶45

W.P No.3809/2020

¶46

¶47

EMD amount and also black-listing for five years in the event, a bidder withdraws his offer.

¶48

FCI has exercised its power and passed order as per Annexure-C debarring the petitioner for five years and also directed the petitioner to deposit the EMD amount and the advertisement charges. The said order is based on

¶49

Clause 6 of the Tender condition.

¶50

The Deputy Commissioner has rightly recorded that petitioner has been black-listed by the FCI and not considered petitioner's bid. Hence, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶51

So far as the order passed by the FCI is concerned, it is relevant to note that from the date of the order (30.01.2019), 2 years and 7 months have elapsed. Admittedly, petitioner has withdrawn his tender. The FCI has rightly demanded the payment o Rs.50,387/- towards advertisement charges. It has also sought for deposit of the EMD amount. The petitioner is an MSME and he has

¶52

W.P No.3809/2020

¶53

¶54

suffered the black-listing for 2 years and 7 months. It was argued by learned Advocate for petitioner that there was a

¶55

bonafide mistake in understanding the exact distance.

¶56

Keeping in view the fact that businessmen in the

¶57

Country has suffered due to Covid-19 pandemic, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be met by limiting the black-listing period and by directing the petitioner to pay the cost of advertisement and a token penalty to the FCI.

¶58

In view of the above, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(a) Writ petition is allowed in part .

¶61

(b) Order dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure-C) is

¶62

modified by holding that the period of black-listing already suffered by the petitioner till date is sufficient and petitioner's black-listing shall end simultaneously from the date petitioner paying Rs.50,387/- towards advertisement cost and Rs.2 Lakhs as token penalty to the FCI.

¶63

¶64

¶65

per Annexure-Q shall remain undisturbed.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

SPS

Sri v. Lakshmikanth v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Lakshmikanth 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

Sri J B Surana Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Sri H M Farooq Vs Sri H.G. Kama Reddy

R Rajkumar Vs Smt Girija Rajgopal

M/S Bls International Services Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D G Kumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Hiremath Hospitals Private Limited Vs Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited