Allowed

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

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/6089/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal and re-issue of a tender where the condition was changed from 'pending application' to 'obtained certificate' for CMMI certification. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's bid as the petitioner had previously applied for and received the certificate, and the change appeared arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Second respondent directed to consider petitioner's bid in accordance with law pursuant to tender No.EDCS/21/ADM/2020.

M/S Bls International Services Ltd. Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P No.6089/2021

¶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.6089 OF 2021 (GM-TEN)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

M/S BLS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.912, INDRA PRAKASH BUILDING 21, BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. BATTULA PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LUKAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS .... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. MANU KULKARNI FOR SMT. SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF E-GOVERNANCE ROOM NO.102, 2^ND GATE M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

DIRECTORATE OF ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF CITIZEN SERVICES DPAR, E-GOVERNANCE DEPARTMENT NO.13, 2^ND FLOOR

¶13

¶14

W.P No.6089/2021

¶15

CRN CHAMBER, ABOVE DHANALASKHMI BANK KASTURBA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR .... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SHRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W SHRI. M. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS BID WITH RESPECT TO TENDER ON THE BASIS OF PETITIONERS PENDING APPLICATION FOR CMMI CERTIFICATION AND ETC..

¶18

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:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner claims to be in the business of tech

¶21

enabled government to citizen services. It has filed this writ petition with a prayer inter alia to direct second respondent to consider petitioner's bid with respect to tender bearing No.EDCS/21/ADM/2020.

¶22

Shri. Manu Kulkarni, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that in December 2020, second respondent had invited tenders for selection of operations partner for managing BangaloreOne, KarnatakaOne,

¶23

W.P No.6089/2021

¶24

¶25

JanaSevaka and MobileOne projects. One of the requirements was Capability Maturity Model Integration¹ Certification and petitioner had submitted it's application for certification. The second respondent had clarified that so long as an application has been submitted, the bid would be considered. On 15.01.2021, the second respondent recalled the tender. In February 2021, the second respondent has revived the tender for same services on the E-procurement website stating that the tender conditions remain unchanged. A pre-bid meeting was held on 02.03.2021 and petitioner's representative sought for a clarification whether petitioner could submit it's bid pending CMMI certification. It was informed by second respondent's representative that only those who had already obtained the certificate are qualified.

¶26

Shri. Kulkarni argued that unilateral and unexplained shift in second respondent's stand is untenable.

1 'CMMI' for short

W.P No.6089/2021

It reduces the competition and may also lead to loss to the exchequer.

¶31

Shri. Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate

¶32

General submitted that the CMMI certification is mandatory. It is the prerogative of the State Government to impose such conditions which are felt necessary for effective implementation of the project. The Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot substitute it's opinion in technical matters.

¶33

In reply, Shri Kulkarni submitted that petitioner had applied for CMMI certificate on 09.01.2021 and the certificate has been received on 09.08.2021.

¶34

I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

¶35

Undisputed facts of the case are, when the

¶36

tender was floated in December 2020, it was informed to the petitioner that if an application was made for CMMI

¶37

W.P No.6089/2021

¶38

¶39

certification, pending receipt of the certificate, petitioner's bid would be considered. The invitation has been withdrawn in January 2021 and a fresh tender has been invited in February 2021. The explanation given by the learned Additional Advocate General for recalling the previous invitation is that there was no cabinet approval when the first tender was called. If that were to be the reason and if the tender is called for the second time within three months from the date of previous tender, the condition with regard CMMI could not have been changed. Learned Additional Advocate General is right in his submission that the Courts normally do not substitute their opinion with regard to technical matters. If the reason for change in condition to insist the certificate were to be based on any technical opinion, the learned Additional Advocate General would have been fully justified in his stand. Further, as on date, the petitioner has also received the CMMI certificate. Shri Kulkarni is right in his

¶40

W.P No.6089/2021

¶41

¶42

submission that higher competition will result in wide

¶43

options for the procurer to choose the best suited.

¶44

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the

¶45

opinion of this Court, the tender bid of petitioner also merits consideration in the hands of second respondent.

¶46

Resultantly, this petition merits consideration

¶47

and hence the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

a) Petition is allowed ;

¶50

b) Second respondent is directed to consider

¶51

petitioner's bid in accordance with law pursuant to tender bearing No.EDCS/21/ADM/2020.

¶52

No costs.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bls International Services Ltd. 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

Sri D G Kumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Hiremath Hospitals Private Limited Vs Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited

M/S Apple Spire India LLP Vs Canara Bank