Partly allowed

Sri v. Lakshmikanth v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2022WA/981/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a Single Judge order limiting the blacklisting period of a transporter to 27 months and reducing the penalty. The High Court held that partial relief was ineffective as the bidder remained disqualified. It allowed the appeal to quash the blacklisting order to make the relief effective despite the appellant still depositing the advertised penalty.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.1.2019 blacklisting the appellant is quashed, though the appellant is directed to deposit the token penalty and advertisement costs.

Sri v Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

¶7

W.A.No.981/2021(GM-TEN)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

[BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SRINIVASA S.B., ADVOCATE (VC)]

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, NO.3, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 006.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

[BY SMT.K.R.ROOPA, HCGP FOR R1, R4 TO R6 (PH); SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 (VC); SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOWDAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7 (VC)]

¶23

THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.3809/2020 (GM-TEN), SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2021 IN W.P.NO.3809/2020 (GM-TEN) TO THE EXTENT OF REJECTION OF PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT, WRIT PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶24

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, RAVI V. HOSMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Challenging judgment dt. 08.09.2021 passed by learned

¶28

Single Judge in WP No.3809/2020 granting partial relief to petitioner - appellant herein, this appeal is filed.

¶29

Appellant was petitioner, while respondents no.1 to 7

¶30

herein were respondents no.1 to 7 respectively, in the writ petition. For sake of convenience, they shall hereinafter be referred to as per their ranks in writ petition.

¶31

Petitioner filed W.P.No.3809/2020 seeking for

¶32

following reliefs:

¶33

"1. Issue a writ a Certiorari, quashing the impugned proceeding headed by the chairmanship of the 5^th respondent vide Annexure-Q dated 27.01.2020.

¶34

2. Issue a writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 bearing No.S & C /13(13) HTC-DVNGR/CONT/2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-C.

¶35

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent Committee to settle the claim made by the petitioner vide letter dated 12.02.2019 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E as expeditiously as possible and

¶36

¶37

in the meantime direct the 4^th and 5^th respondent to consider his tender application in respect of Sorabha and Sagara Taluk a copy of which is produced at Annexure-J in the ends of justice.

¶38

4. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case".

¶39

In the writ petition, it was stated that petitioner was carrying on business of transportation of food grains from KFCSC - TAPMCS/ other wholesale nominee godowns to fair price depots. Respondent no.2 issued tender notification dated 20.11.2018, for loading/unloading/handling and transportation of food grains and allied materials in and around Goodshed/Railhead AVC and Davanagere Depot (PWS).

¶40

Description of work was as follows:

¶41

"Loading/Unloading/Handling and Transport Contract at rail head/goods shed, Amaravathi Colony (AVC) and Davangere PWS (Private Warehousing Scheme) Godown"

¶42

The last date for submission of bids was 11.12.2018 and duration of tender was two years. Petitioner also submitted his bid. Tender was opened on 27.12.2018, wherein petitioner returned as L1 bidder. As he was eligible on all counts, tender was confirmed in his name. Shortly, thereafter petitioner came to

¶43

¶44

know that distance of transportation was not five kilometers, but 22 kms. This rendered his bid totally unviable.

¶45

On 02.01.2019, he addressed letter to respondent no.2 seeking for increase of lead km/MT price, so that he could execute work. He also sought for cancellation of his offer, in case his request for increase of lead km/MT price was not acceded to.

¶46

Taking note of this letter as withdrawing from tender, respondent no.2 passed an order dated 30.01.2019 referring to clause 6(i) of tender condition debarring petitioner from participating in any other tender enquiry of FCI for a period of 5 years from date of order and calling upon petitioner to remit on or before 13.02.2019 sum of Rs.10,87,687/(i.e., Rs.10,37,300/- being amount equivalent to EMD and Rs.50,387/towards cost of paper publication).

¶47

In the meanwhile, respondent no.2 issued fresh tender notification on 16.01.2019 for same work, but revising its description as follows:

¶48

"Loading/Unloading/Handling and Transport Contract at rail head/goods shed, Amaravathi Colony (AVC) and Davangere PWS (Private Warehousing Scheme) Godown".

¶49

¶50

( Address of the Godown: NCML, Survey No.25/1, Obajjihalli Village, Davangere Taluk577 589 )

¶51

Aggrieved, by order dated 30.01.2019, petitioner submitted representation dated 12.02.2019 requesting for waiver of amount of Rs.10,87,687/- and also for withdrawal of order of blacklisting on the ground that his mistake was bonafide. Said representation was forwarded to Grievance Redressal Committee after constituting Committee under office order dated 08.05.2019. Thereafter, petitioner was issued with intimation dated 23.08.2019 to appear before Grievance Redressal Committee on 29.08.2019.

¶52

In the meanwhile, another tender notification dated 07.12.2019 was issued for transportation of food grains and other items from KFCSC/TAPCMS/other wholesale nominee godowns to fair price depots including loading, unloading and arrangement in stack formation in fair price depots in 15 talukas of six districts by road. In response to said notification, petitioner also submitted his bid. On 28.01.2020, petitioner was called upon to produce documents to substantiate his declaration that he has not been blacklisted. Petitioner replied vide letter dated

¶53

¶54

29.01.2020 stating that he had resiled from Davanagere tender before issuance of work order and as his appeal against blacklisting was pending before Grievance Redressal Committee, he sought for considering his bid.

¶55

When his reply was not considered, he wrote one more letter dated 10.02.2020 seeking clarification. In response, he was issued with copy of proceedings of Tender Committee dated 27.01.2020 wherein decision was taken holding petitioner ineligible due to order dated 30.01.2019 passed by General Manager, FCI, Regional Office, Bengaluru, blacklisting for five years.

¶56

Questioning said decision as well as earlier order dated 30.01.2019, petitioner filed W.P.No.3809/2020. In the said writ petition he also sought for a direction to Grievance Redressal Committee to take decision on his representation dated 12.02.2019 and to consider his bid in response to notification at Annexure – H.

¶57

On service of notice, respondents no.2 and 3 entered appearance and filed statement of objections. In the same, it was stated that under notification dated 20.11.2018,

¶58

¶59

respondents had issued Handling and Transport Contract under Private Warehousing Scheme (PWS) and transportation from Railhead/Goodshed (RH/GS) Amaravathy Colony (AVC) to Davanagere PWS Depot for a period of two years. Detailed advertisement was published in English Daily Newspaper and Kannada Daily Newspaper as well. After last date for receipt of bids, tender was opened on 12.12.2018. Six responses were received. After scrutiny, all six were found to be technically qualified. Thereafter financial bid was opened on 27.12.2018, when petitioner was found to be L1 bidder with a quotation of 37% ASOR (above schedule of rate) for Handling and Rs.177/per MT for transportation.

¶60

Thereafter on 02.01.2019, petitioner submitted a letter stating that he had visited AVC goodshed which was only 5 kms., away from railway goodshed and therefore had quoted a very competitive price, but as actual transportation distance was 22 kms., from Davanagere Municipality and his bid was submitted while petitioner was labouring under a mistake of fact, therefore, he sought to resile from tender.

¶61

¶62

It was further submitted that main ground of challenge was that tender authority had not disclosed material particulars which would enable bidders to know about actual distance of transportation. But said submission was incorrect as general information to tenders clearly mentioned distance of transportation as 14 kms and storage capacity of warehouse was 3500 MTs. Therefore, petitioner was not justified in resiling from his bid.

¶63

It was further submitted that petitioner was granted permission to participate in the tender as an MSME, which was exempted from remitting EMD for participating in the tender. Clause 6 of tender conditions stated consequences of successful bidder resiling. It stipulated forfeiture of EMD and recovery of cost of paper publication, without prejudice to its other rights and remedies. It was contended that consideration of feasibility of bid amount for execution of tender work was within exclusive discretion of bidders. Tender notification had not only clearly mentioned distance of transportation as 14 kms., but also storage capacity of godown as 13500 MTs. It was specifically asserted that corporation had sustained loss as subsequent tender had to be awarded at higher amount and required

¶64

¶65

repeating of tender process five times. It was lastly, contended that scope for exercise of judicial review and interference under extraordinary jurisdiction was extremely limited in contractual matters and therefore, no indulgence was called for in this case.

¶66

In the rejoinder statement filed by petitioner, it was reasserted that actual distance of transportation was 22 kms. Contention regarding loss sustained by Corporation due to publication of fresh tender notification was unsustainable as respondents had failed to consider bids of other participants in same tender but had maliciously proceeded to take action against petitioner. It was contended that where an offer was made under a mistaken fact, there cannot be a concluded contract and therefore petitioner was entitled to withdraw from offer. It was further submitted that as there was no intention on part of petitioner to cause loss to respondents nor was there any delay in intimating them about withdrawal, there was no justification for respondents to have imposed maximum penalty upon petitioner. It was also stated that contents of Model Tender Form would not cure defects in tender notification. Petitioner further stated that immediately after passing of order dated 30.01.2019, petitioner had submitted letter dated 12.02.2019

¶67

¶68

questioning decision. Same was placed before Grievance Redressal Committee. During pendency of his appeal before Committee, petitioner was entitled to participate in subsequent tender processes. It was further contended that Grievance Redressal Committee passed order on 12.03.2020 confirming order dated 30.01.2019 after grant of interim order of stay in writ petition filed by petitioner. It was stated that action of respondents in passing order dated 12.03.2020 (produced as Annexure – R) after grant of interim order was contemptuous. It was lastly contended that respondents being a Government undertaking was expected to act fairly and not to compel performance of an impossibility and that there was failure to objectively consider petitioner’s representation and his representation was rejected without assigning proper reasons and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶69

While passing impugned order, learned Single Judge has taken note of petitioner’s submission that tender of petitioner was on an incorrect assumption that distance of transportation was 5 kms and was a bonafide mistake. Opposition of respondents to writ petition is also noted. After taking note of contents of clause 6 of tender conditions, learned

¶70

¶71

Single Judge observed that order (Annexure – C) passed by FCI (respondent no.2) was based on clause 6 of tender condition. Learned Single Judge further held that as petitioner was blacklisted by FCI, order passed by Deputy Commissioner not to consider petitioner’s bid did not call for interference.

¶72

However, taking note of fact that two years and seven months had lapsed after passing of order dated 30.01.2019 and prevalent situation due to COVID-19 pandemic, where businessmen had suffered, learned Single Judge found fit to pass a discretionary order to limit period of blacklisting by directing petitioner to pay cost of advertisement and token penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-, while confirming order passed by Deputy Commissioner holding petitioner ineligible to participate in tender in pursuance of notification at Annexure – H. Challenging said order, petitioner is in appeal.

¶73

Sri. P.P. Hege, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. S.B. Srinivasa, advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner had applied for tender for transportation of food grains in pursuance of tender notification dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure – A). It was submitted that tender was opened on 12.12.2018

¶74

¶75

and as petitioner was lowest bidder, he was declared as L1 bidder on 20.12.2018. At that point, petitioner verified from respondents about location of Private Warehouse and found that distance of transportation was more than 22 kms. contrary to his mistaken assumption that it was only 5 kms. Immediately thereafter, he submitted a letter dated 02.01.2019 as per Annexure – B informing respondents about his bonafide mistake and seeking for withdrawal from tender without penal consequences. Learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to description of tender in notification at Annexure – A (extracted supra).

¶76

It was submitted that immediately thereafter, respondents issued fresh tender notification for same work as per notification dated 16.01.2019 produced as Annexure – D. Our attention was drawn to revision of description in notification at Annexure – D (extracted supra).

¶77

It was submitted that marked improvement in description of tender work can only be to avoid confusion regarding location of PWS and distance of transportation. This amounted to respondents acknowledging that notification at

¶78

¶79

Annexure – A without this clarification was likely to cause confusion. This vindicated that incorrect assumption by petitioner regarding distance of transportation while submitting his bid in response to tender notification at Annexure – A was bonafide, as expressed by petitioner in his letter dated 02.01.2019. It was submitted that without considering that it was a bonafide mistake on part of petitioner and without complying with principles of natural justice impugned order dated 30.01.2019 as per Annexure – C came to be passed blacklisting petitioner for a period of five year and also holding him liable to pay a penalty of Rs.10,87,687/- towards forfeiture of EMD and advertisement cost.

¶80

It was further submitted that though petitioner had submitted his appeal for reconsideration immediately thereafter on 12.02.2019 as per Annexure – E, same was kept pending. Only by order dated 08.05.2019 (Annexure – F), there was constitution of Grievance Redressal Committee and vide notice dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure – G), petitioner was directed to appear before it on 29.08.2019. Even after petitioner appeared before Committee and decision was yet to be taken, there was issuance of tender notification dated 07.12.2019 for similar

¶81

¶82

tender work. Petitioner submitted his bid in response to same. As he did not receive any information regarding status of his bid, he addressed a letter dated 29.01.2020 as per Annexure – K, requesting for information. It was submitted that after seeking clarification regarding petitioner suffering order of blacklisting, respondents informed about petitioner being held ineligible for tender. Upon petitioner seeking reasons for decision, respondents forwarded copy of proceedings of Tender Committee as per Annexure – Q. Tender Committee taken note of order dated 30.01.2019 blacklisting petitioner for five years and held petitioner ineligible. It was submitted that pendency of petitioner’s appeal before Grievance Redressal Committee was not taken note of. It was submitted that until decision of Grievance Redressal Committee, order of blacklisting did not attain finality and petitioner could not be barred from participating in other tenders. Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT) of Delhi and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , learned Senior Counsel submitted that order of blacklisting cannot be passed without complying with principles of natural justice as consequences which amounts to ‘civil death’.

¶83

¶84

It was further submitted that writ petition was filed on 20.02.2020, wherein interim order was granted on 02.03.2020 staying operation of order of blacklisting as per Annexure – C and also order holding petitioner ineligible (Annexure – Q) to participate in pursuance of notification at Annexure – H. In view of interim order, petitioner was entitled to participate in tender process vide Annexure – H. Despite petitioner being lowest bidder therein, respondents proceeded to award tender in favour of respondent no.7. Under such circumstances, sought indulgence of this Court to set aside award of tender in favour of respondent no.7. It was further submitted that during pendency of writ petition, though petitioner consented for respondents to proceed with tender process in pursuance of notification at Annexure – H, it was with an understanding that respondents would consider petitioner’s bid also. However, respondents proceeded without considering his bid and therefore, interference of this Court was called for.

¶85

On the other hand Sri. B.L. Sajeev, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, Smt. K.R. Roopa, learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) appearing for respondents no.1, 4

¶86

¶87

to 6 and Sri. Abhishek Patil, advocate appearing for Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for respondent no.7 opposed appeal and sought for its dismissal.

¶88

Sri. B.L. Sanjeev learned counsel submitted that appeal was untenable as law regarding scope and extent of judicial review in contractual matters having been set by Hon’ble Supreme Court and learned Single Judge already having shown sufficient indulgence. Insofar as contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice, it was submitted that impugned order dated 30.01.2019 was passed in pursuance of letter given by petitioner himself resiling from his tender on admitted default. Consequences of default having been clearly stipulated in clause 6 of tender conditions and petitioner being fully aware of same sought to resile from his bid. It was submitted that duration of blacklisting and also quantum of penalty imposed being strictly in terms of provisions of tender conditions, petitioner cannot make a case of grievance against same. It was submitted that after passing of order of blacklisting, petitioner submitted letter dated 12.02.2020 for reconsideration. As per procedure, same was required to be placed before Grievance Redressal Committee. After constitution of Grievance Redressal Committee, petitioner

¶89

¶90

was issued notice for appearance before Committee. After hearing petitioner, Grievance Redressal Committee passed order on 12.03.2020. Said order is produced by petitioner as Annexure – R. However, petitioner has not challenged the same. It was further submitted that as a direct consequence of petitioner resiling from tender, respondent – corporation was subjected to loss. As petitioner availed exemption from deposit of EMD, corporation was unable to mitigate its losses.

¶91

It was further submitted that though impugned order blacklisting petitioner was passed on 30.01.2019, petitioner filed writ petition challenging order of blacklisting only on 20.02.2020. It was further submitted that in view of order of blacklisting, petitioner was ineligible to participate in any subsequent tenders. Apart from same, subsequent tender process was permitted to be continued as per consent given by petitioner, which was recorded by learned Single Judge in the order dated 15.10.2020. The tender process having been continued and petitioner being ineligible, award of tender in favour of respondent no.7 was fully justified. Decision of tender committee as per Annexure – Q also did not call for interferenc, as order of blacklisting was not interfered with either by Grievance Redressal Committee or by

¶92

¶93

learned Single Judge. Mere reduction of duration of blacklisting would not entitle petitioner to challenge award of tender in favour of respondent no.7. On the above submission, learned counsel sought for dismissal of appeal.

¶94

Learned HCGP supported said submissions.

¶95

Sri. Abhishek Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.7 submitted that respondent no.7 is not concerned with petitioner’s challenge to order dated 30.01.2019 blacklisting him. It was submitted that tender work in respect of which petitioner was blacklisted was different from tender work for which respondent no.7 was a participant. It was submitted that taking note of order of blacklisting passed against petitioner in respect of different tender, petitioner was held ineligible insofar as tender process initiated in pursuance of notification at Annexure – H. Though interim order of stay was granted in respect of order dated 30.01.2019 as well as order holding him ineligible to participate in tender vide notification at Annexure – H, respondents were permitted to proceed with tender process in furtherance of Annexure – H noting petitioner’s 'no objection' to same as recorded in the order dated 15.10.2020. In view of said

¶96

¶97

order, respondents processed bids received as per notification at Annexure – H and upon finding respondent no.7 as eligible L1 bidder. In view of same, grievance of petitioner insofar as tender notification at Annexure – H stood infructuous. Therefore, there was no merit in appeal insofar as tender at Annexure – H. Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transport and Suppliers Vs. M/s. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and others in SLP (Civil) No.12766 of 2020 disposed of on 18.12.2020 , it was submitted that judicial review of tender authority was limited and therefore sought dismissal of appeal.

¶98

In reply, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that immediately after passing of order dated 30.01.2019, petitioner filed W.P.No.2196/2020, which came to be dismissed reserving liberty to approach Grievance Redressal Committee. Thereafter, pursued his cause before Grievance Redressal Committee. Therefore, there was no delay in approaching the Court. It was further submitted that as order at Annexure – R was passed during pendency of interim order granted on 02.03.2020, but same was unsustainable and called for interference.

¶99

¶100

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record.

¶101

Before considering rival submissions, following facts have to be borne in mind. In writ petition challenging order of blacklisting dated 30.01.2019 and decision dated 27.01.2020 taken by Tender Committee holding petitioner ineligible, learned Single Judge affirmed decision of Tender Committee in pursuance of notification at Annexure – H. Insofar as decision of blacklisting, learned Single Judge exercised jurisdiction and modified rigor of impugned order by restricting period of blacklisting to two years and seven months already spent and reducing quantum of penalty to a token sum of Rs.2,00,000/only, apart from cost of advertisement of Rs.50,387/-. Aggrieved by grant of partial relief i.e., challenging denial of complete relief, petitioner is in appeal. Said order is not challenged by FCI. Therefore, that portion of order granting partial relief to petitioner has attained finality as against respondents. Therefore, there is considerable force in submission of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that as tender conditions would still render petitioner ineligible to participate in any tenders despite

¶102

¶103

reduction of duration of blacklisting, relief granted was virtual and not actual. Therefore, relief granted was required to be modified so as to be effective.

¶104

Learned Senior Counsel also urged violation of principles of natural justice before passing of order of blacklisting. He relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services ( supra ).

¶105

Though said contention appears formidable, in the case on hand, the fact that petitioner resiled from tender is undisputed. Consequences of successful bidder withdrawing from tender are clearly stipulated. When tender conditions do not provide for exercise of discretion while decided consequences upon withdrawal of bid, issuance of notice prior to passing order of blacklisting would be futile.

¶106

However, learned Single Judge upon appreciation of facts and circumstances of this case and finding probable cause for bonafide mistake on the part of petitioner in assuming distance of transportation as five kms, taking note of petitioner’s conduct in approaching tender authorities, confiding his bonafide mistake seeking for remission from penalty and blacklisting,

¶107

¶108

immediately upon realizing his mistake as a cause for commuting quantum of penalty. Impugned order is therefore passed in exercise of discretionary powers by learned Single Judge. Respondents have not demonstrated actual distance of transportation was 14 kms, while petitioner has consistently alleged it to be 22 kms. Even in the order dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure – R) passed by Grievance Redressal Committee, there is no finding regarding distance of transportation.

¶109

On the other hand, viability of bid are considerations for bidders. Tender process mandates exercise of due diligence on part of bidders before submitting bid. Admittedly, there is failure on part of petitioner in exercising due diligence in this case. Therefore, instant case is not a fit case to absolve petitioner of responsibility/consequences of his action. To the said extent, there is no merit in the appeal.

¶110

However, it is a fact that tender process of respondent – FCI contains a condition for disqualification of any bidder, who suffered order of blacklisting. Therefore, despite commutation of duration of blacklisting, petitioner would continue to be ineligible. If order passed by learned Single Judge

¶111

¶112

is left uninterfered with, it would still inflict ‘civil death’ [ Gorkha Security Services (supra)], upon petitioner.

¶113

Therefore, only to extent of rendering relief granted effective, appeal deserves consideration. Hence, we pass following:

¶114

O R D E R

¶115

Writ appeal is partly allowed.

¶116

The order dated 30.1.2019 (Annexure-C) is quashed.

¶117

It is clarified that imposition of costs and penalty on the appellant as well as the disqualification at Annexure-Q not being disturbed, as far as Annexure-H is concerned, the same shall not be considered as disqualification in future tender process.

¶118

Any proceedings taken in furtherance at Annexure-Q shall also remain undisturbed.

¶119

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant undertakes to deposit, the cost of Rs.50,387/- towards the advertisement and Rs.2,00,000/- as token penalty as ordered by the learned Single Judge, within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶120

The said undertaking is placed on record.

¶121

¶122

The appellant shall deposit the aforesaid amount within eight weeks from today.

¶123

List the matter for recording compliance after eight weeks.

¶124

Sd/JUDGE

¶125

Sd/-

¶126