Dismissed

Vinayak Ramachandra Gayakawad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2022WP/101003/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the allotment of a tender for road construction. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the availability of alternative remedies and the completion of works. The Court also observed that the tender authority had reserved its right to negotiate and select the satisfying bid.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vinayak Ramachandra Gayakawad Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101003 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 101003 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VINAYAK RAMACHANDRA GAYAKAWAD AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O HATALAGERI ONI, KALAGHATAGI, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPORTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHANASOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-580001.

¶12

VINAYAKA B V

¶13

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: Dharwad Date: 2022.06.09 10:21:55 +0530

¶14

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT KALAGHATAGI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204.

¶15

EXECUTIVE OFFICR, TALUKA PANCHAYAT KALAGHATAGI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204.

¶16

MADIK DASHARATHA NARAYAN, AGE MAJOR, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/AT: KALAKUNDI, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

WP No. 101003 of 2022

¶20

(BY SRI.VINAYAK V.S. HCGP FOR R1) (BY SRI.VIJAY MALALI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) (BY SRI.D.M.MALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 IN NO.TAPAMKA/KANIAKAKELASAD/ADESSH/ 2021-22 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND VIDE ANNEXURE-E TENDER DATED 22.02.2022 PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶25

The petitioner had offered his bids responding to the tender notification dated 11.02.2022 issued by respondent No.3 Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayat Kalagatagi. The tender was called for the purpose laying concrete road between MDR main road to Taluka Hospital internal road at Gambyapur village, Kalagatagi Taluk. The petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment of tender in favor of respondent No.4 and therefore this petition is filed to quash the order dated 03.03.2022 at Annexure-F and the tender notification itself and further a writ

¶26

¶27

WP No. 101003 of 2022

¶28

of mandamus is sought to direct the respondent No.3 to recall the tender notification and issue a fresh notification.

¶29

Statement of objections have been filed at the hands of respondent No.3. It is stated in the objections that although the petitioner turned out to be a lowest amongst the four tenders in the financial bid, nevertheless when the technical bid was opened it was found that all the four were lacking on one aspect or the other. Therefore having noticed the fact that the respondent No.4 was found deficient in only one aspect, while the petitioner herein was lacking in three aspects, the respondent No.4 was called for negotiation and he having accepted to match the financial bid made by the petitioner and to comply with the other deficiencies, the tender was entrusted to the respondent No.4. Moreover, it is submitted that the works were required to be completed within a period of 15 days and the works have been completed by the respondent No.4 to the satisfaction of respondent No.3.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the tender issuance authority has reserved it’s right to accept or cancel the tenders,

¶31

¶32

WP No. 101003 of 2022

¶33

without assigning any reasons for the same. The notification would also empower respondent No.3 tender issuance authority to negotiate with any of the tenders and finally accept the tender of one who would most satisfy the requirements of the tender notification. Moreover, as it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, the works have been completed and the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. At any rate it is also a contention of the respondents that the petitioner could not have approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy available by way of appeal under Section 16 of The Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements Act, 1999. In the light of the above this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition stands

¶34

dismissed .

¶35

SD JUDGE

¶36

Vinayak Ramachandra Gayakawad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinayak Ramachandra Gayakawad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Kishor Krishnaji Pawar Vs the Chairman

Anand Basavavataray @ Basavantaray Sasanur Vs Sureshbabu S/O Mahantappa Nidagundi

Yallappa S/O Adiveppa Batakhani Vs Mallikarjunappa S/O Basappa Battur

Smt. Rekha W/O Ningappa Kolala Vs Sri. Ningappa S/O Shivalingappa Kolala

Smt. Shashikala W/O Iranna Ganiger Vs Iranna S/O Shivaputrappa Ganiger

Shri. Basagouda S/O Ramappa Narasannavar Vs the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.