Dismissed

Sri K M Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023WP/1556/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notification leasing APMC shops, arguing applicability of a Government Order mandating a lower Earnest Money Deposit for SC/ST tenders. The Court held the Order applies only to procurement of construction works, not to leasing existing shops, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted; the writ petition was dismissed as finding no merit.

Sri K M Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1556 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1556 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.M.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA K.V., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S RAITHRA CHETHANA TECHNOLOGIES (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.42, I MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, HAVANUR EXTENSION, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 560 073. COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER 1968 OF APMC ACT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. K.S.NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 1556 of 2023

¶17

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, NO.16, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, MAHATHMA GANDHI AGRICULTURE MARKETING, YESHAVANTHAPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.T.SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 12.01.23 IN NO. Kru.Ma.E/Krau.ma.Sa(Bem),MLIGE/3 684/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, MAHATMA GANDHI COMPLEX, MARKET AREA, YESHAVANTHAPUR, BANGALORE 4560022 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – E AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the Notification dated 12.01.2023 issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee ('APMC' for short) whereby the

¶26

¶27

WP No. 1556 of 2023

¶28

shops that come within the precincts of the APMC are sought to be leased out in terms of the said Notification.

¶29

The petitioner who is a participant in the auction process has knocked at the doors of this Court contending that the Government has issued an Order dated 10.10.2017 whereby the tender inviting authority is required to accept an EMD amount fixed at Rs.25,000/- than what is generally sought at 1% of the total amount put to tender, for a tenderer who belongs to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.

¶30

The petitioner wants to participate in the auction process and is seeking a direction that his EMD should be restricted to Rs.25,000/-, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Government Order is applicable to all kinds of tender including the one that is the subject matter of the present petition.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the APMC who has filed statement of objections takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition seeking to demonstrate

¶32

¶33

WP No. 1556 of 2023

¶34

that the said Government Order is applicable only to procurement tender and not for leasing out shops or godowns.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶36

would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the APMC.

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶38

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶39

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

¶40

issue lies in the narrow compass. The issue is;

¶41

"Whether the Government order dated 10.10.2017 would be applicable to the subject tender?"

¶42

The Government order dated 10.10.2017 reads as

¶43

follows:

¶44

Sl. No.	Reference Standard Tender Documents	to	Existing Clause	Modified Clauses
04	Clause 9.1		Earnest Money Deposit: The tenderer shall furnish as part of his tender, EMD at the following rates EMD amounting as % of the estimated	The tenderer shall furnish as part of his tender, EMD at the following rates. EMD amount as % of the estimated cost of the work put to _tender _

¶45

¶46

WP No. 1556 of 2023

¶47

		cost of the work put to tender a) Upto Rs.20 lakh – 2.5% b) Rs.20.00 lakh and above upto Rs.1.00 cr. – 2% subject to a minimum of Rs.50,000/-	a) Upto 20 1.25% b) Rs.20 lakh above upto Rs.5 lakh – 1 % subje a minimum Rs.25,000/-	lakh and 0.00 ct to of
05	Performance Security	Within 20 days of the receipt of the letter of acceptance, the successful tenderer shall deliver to the employer a security deposit in any of the forms given below for an amount equivalent to 5% of the contract price.	Security deposit an amount equiv to 5% of the con price shall deducted in running However, in ca first and final bil entire se deposit will deducted from final bill.	for alent tract be every bill. se of l the curity be the

¶48

2) This order will apply for invitation of tenders for procurement of construction works to be invited hereafter and shall not be applicable for tenders already invited.

¶49

3) There is no change in the remaining clauses of the Standard Tender Documents.

¶50

(Emphasis added)

¶51

A perusal at the Government Order would clearly indicate that it is applicable only to procurement tenders of construction works. The subject tender/auction is seeking to auction shops and godowns which are already constructed by the APMC and

¶52

¶53

WP No. 1556 of 2023

¶54

can by no stretch of imagination be construed to be a procurement of construction work.

¶55

The petitioner who seeks to participate in the auction to be held by the APMC to lease out the shops that are already constructed cannot draw parallel with the Government Order which is restrictive only to procurement construction work and contend that he is to pay only Rs.25,000/- as EMD.

¶56

The submission on the strength of the Government

¶57

Order supra is misplaced, so, is the writ petition. Finding no merit, the petition stands dismissed.

¶58

The interim order subsisting stands dissolved.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

SJK

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri K M Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K M Shivakumar v. the 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

Dr. Sanjiv Kunnatur Vs the Principal Secretary Housing Department

Abdul Malik Hameed Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Dr Latha K Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Caste and Income Verification Committee

Smt. K. Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Purushotham C Y Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sri K S Mahesh Vs Smt Manjula J