The court dismissed a writ petition questioning the allotment of a solid waste driver tender to a previously nominated bidder. The judge held that the petitioner's failure to participate in the new tender precluded any grievance regarding the fresh allotment.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6821 WP No. 104037 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.104037 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNA S/O. OBALESH ARWED, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, ARWED SERVICES, SHRI RAM PLAZA, 1ST PHASE, OPP JAIN MANDIR, LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6821 WP No. 104037 of 2023
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2023 BEARING NO.CR-0623SW-0511-01-000000 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS SEEKING DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE QUOTATIONS DATED 21.12.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO C3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning
the impugned order dated 22.06.2023 passed by
respondent No.6 vide Annexure-D.
allotment of tender to respondent No.7, petitioner is before this Court questioning the tender being granted in favour of respondent No.7 without considering the representation made by the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by respondent No.6 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and requires to be quashed. He further contends that respondent No.6 ought to have called fresh tender for providing services of door to door collection of solid waste using HDMC owned Auto tipper. On these grounds, he seeks to allow this petition and consequently quash the order passed by respondent No.6 vide Annexure-D.
Thereafter, respondent No.6 called for fresh tender on 21.09.2022 by way of a notification. On finalization of the said tender notification, the petitioner herein was permitted to continue services. Thereafter, on 09.12.2022, an ad-hoc arrangement was made and the petitioner's services came to be withdrawn. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court in Writ Petition No.105984/2022. The said writ petition came to be dismissed and the petitioner was permitted to participate in the tender, if any.
chosen as the successful bidder and tender came to be allotted in his favour, which is now questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.
writ petition, the petitioner was granted opportunity to participate in the tender, if any, by this Court and so also it is relevant to note that nothing prevented the petitioner in participating in the earlier tender which was floated by the 6th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner having not participated in the tender cannot have a grievance against the allotment of tender and the violation of the terms and conditions of the tender since he did not bother to participate in the tender and has kept quite. He has enjoyed the extension granted by the 6th respondent till the finalization of the tender floated and pursuant to the finalization, the extension or permission granted came to be withdrawn. But in view of writ petition having been filed
by the petitioner, the work order was not issued and now work order has been issued to respondent No.7. I do not
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6821 WP No. 104037 of 2023
find any valid or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the 6th respondent in allotment of tender to respondent No.7 as there is no illegality or perversity in the said allotment. Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
AM,CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allotment of tender to respondent No.7 without considering the petitioner's quotation warrants judicial interference.
Whether the petitioner's failure to participate in the subsequent tender entitles him to question the allotment.
Krishna S/o. Obalesh Arwed
The State of Karnataka
Vikas Soudha
Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation
The Executive Engineer (SWM), Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation
B.S. Rajashekar
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
