Petitioner challenged cancellation of a tender for supply of screening machines. Rejected claim that right had crystallized as no work order issued. Court held cancellation not arbitrary/unreasonable and dismissed petition.
The petition is dismissed. No grounds found to interfere with the order of cancellation of the tender.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 9249 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 9249 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX - SMT SUSHMA M R
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RAMANAGAR-562159
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159
WP No. 9249 of 2022
NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT, BANGALORE-26
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. Y.D. SHIVASHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 - SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER / DTD. 07.04.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 INTIMATING THE R-3 TO CANCEL THE TENDER WORK AND CALL FOR FRESH SHORT TERM TENDER VIDE ANNX-G. DIRECTION TO THE R-2 AND 3 TO ASSIGN THE TENDER WORK FOR THE PURCHASE OF 30 TPD TROMMEL SCREENING MACHINES AND BELT CONVERYOR UNDER SWATCH BHARATH MISSION GRANT TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the action of respondent No.2 seeking to cancel the Tender in terms of its order dated 07.04.2022.
WP No. 9249 of 2022
appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and also Sri Y.D.Shivashankara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
The petitioner- Firm is an establishment carrying on business of supply of screening machines and allied equipments, which are being used for disposal of solid waste. Pursuant to a Notification inviting tender by respondent No.3 for supply of 30 TPD Trommel Screening Machines and Belt Converyors under 'Swatch Bharath Mission', the petitioner being qualified in both Technical bid as well as Financial bid, submits his bid. Though the petitioner engaged in detail correspondence with the respondents, no action is taken to allot the Tender work in
WP No. 9249 of 2022
favour of the petitioner, for which the petitioner was the successful bidder. On verification, the petitioner comes to know about cancellation of the tender work and inviting a fresh short term Tender. Further, the respondentAuthorities without assigning any reasons, after completion of the tender process, have cancelled the tender. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not assigning the Tender work in favour of the petitioner and cancellation of the Tender is what drives the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition.
WP No. 9249 of 2022
in W.P.No.6479/2022. During the pendency of the said
writ petition, the impugned order of cancellation of the Tender Notification comes about. On the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the said writ petition comes to be disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner to call the order of cancellation of Tender in question. Exercising said liberty that is granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has preferred the subject writ petition calling in question cancellation of Tender.
WP No. 9249 of 2022
provisions of the Act to contend that cancellation of a Tender by the Tender Inviting Authority, who is the Chief Officer of the District Urban Development Cell (DUDC) and would submit that no right of the petitioner is taken away by the said action.
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
Tender Notification comes to be issued in the year 2021. The petitioner submits his bid pursuant to the Notification inviting a Tender. The Tender Scrutiny Committee appears to have accepted the technical bid and the financial bid of the petitioner and later, seeks to cancel the Tender even before any letter of intent, being issued to the petitioner informing or communicating to the petitioner that he is the successful bidder in the Tender. Before anything could fructify as a right to the hands of the petitioner, the
WP No. 9249 of 2022
Tender comes to be cancelled on 07.04.2022. The order
of cancellation of the Tender reads as follows;
" ¸ÀéZÀÒ ¨sÁgÀvï «ÄµÀ£ï CrAiÀÄ°è ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæ WÀ£À vÁådåªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ «¸ÀÛøvÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ WÀ£ÀvÁådå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ «¯ÉêÁj ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 30 TPD Trommel screening Machine Rjâ¸À®Ä mÉAqÀgï zÀgÀUÀ½UÉ (Indent No.DMA/2020-21/IND11029) C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆÃj G¯ÉèÃR(4) gÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj mÉAqÀgï£À°è ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¹gÀĪÀ MlÄÖ 5 KeɤìUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ©qÁÝgÀgÁzÀ M/s Sadhana Evniro Engineering Services gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Engineering Works gÀªÀgÀÄ 2 KeɤìUÀ¼À vÁAwæPÀ ©qï£ÀÄßö Substantially nearing to the qualification criteria JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹, ¸ÀzÀj mÉAqÀgï£À vÁAwæPÀ ©qïUÀ½UÉ G¯ÉèÃR(5) gÀAvÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
12. ©qïzÁgÀgÁzÀ M/s Sadhana Evniro
Engineering Services gÀªÀgÀÄ 1.1 ©qïzÁgÀgÁzÀ M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Engineering Works gÀªÀgÀ vÁAwæPÀ CºÀðvÉ §UÉÎ ¢:16.11.2021 gÀAzÀÄ CPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ mÉAqÀgï zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃf£À°è «¢ü¹gÀĪÀ CºÀðvÁ ªÀiÁ£ÀzÀAqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, «©ü£Àß µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¢ü¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è
WP No. 9249 of 2022
¸ÀàµÀÖvÉ E®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀjAzÁV ¤RgÀªÁV wêÀiÁð£À PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
F §UÉÎ vÀ«ÄäAzÀ ¸Àà¶ÃPÀgÀt PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, G¯ÉèÃR(6) gÀAvÉ “¸ÀéZÀÒ ¨sÁgÀvï «ÄµÀ£ï CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¯ÉUÀ¹ vÁådåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj Trommel screening Machine AiÀÄAvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¹ §AiÉÆêÉÄʤAUï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀzÀj mÉAqÀgï PÀgÉAiÀįÁVzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ Technical Bid vÉgÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 12 ©qïzÁgÀgÁzÀ M/s Sadhana Evniro Engineering Services ºÁUÀÆ 1.1 ©qïzÁgÀgÁzÀ M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Engineering Works gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj mÉAqÀgï EvÀåxÀðªÁUÀ®Ä «¼ÀA§ªÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ªÀÄgÀÄ mÉAqÀgï (Short Term) PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj”.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀéZÀÒ ¨sÁgÀvï «ÄµÀ£ï CrAiÀÄ°è WÀ£À vÁådå «¯ÉêÁj PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀPÉÌ «¼ÀA§ªÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ G¯ÉèÃR(6) gÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj mÉAqÀgï£ÀÄß (Indent No.DMA/2020-21/IND11029) gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹, ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄgÀÄ mÉAqÀgï (C¯ÁàªÀ¢ü) PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃrzÉ.
(ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ)."
WP No. 9249 of 2022
Tender cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable for this Court to interfere in a case, particularly, where the petitioner's right had not yet been crystallized by issuance of a work order in his favour.
case at hand, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an order cancelling a tender when the successful bidder's right had not yet crystallized.
Whether the reasons rendered in the order cancelling the tender were arbitrary or unreasonable warranting interference.
Whether the Tender Inviting Authority had the competence to cancel the tender.
SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA ENGINEERING WORKS LAGGERE BRIDGE
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MAGADI
SADHANA ENVIRO ENGINEERING SERVICES
M. NAGAPRASANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
