Allowed

B. v. Shivakumar v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2023WP/24/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the Karnataka High Court held that where a tender bid was placed inadvertently with an extra zero, resulting in an erroneously high amount, the subsequent fresh tender notice was a violation of natural justice. The court allowed the petition and quashed the fresh tender, permitting the petitioner to continue under the original contract while directing

What did the court decide?

The fresh e-tender notice dated 15.12.2022 was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to continue under the existing order and contract.

B. v. Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B. V. SHIVAKUMAR S/O G. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.04, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK BEHIND ASHOKA THEATER CHIKKABANAVARA BANGALORE 560 090

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001

¶14

THE DIRECTOR FISHERIES DEPARTMETN 2ND FLOOR PODIUM BNLOCK VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶17

BENGALURU 560 001

¶18

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FISHERIES DEPARTMENT KORATAGERE TALUK PANCHAYATH KORATAGERE 572129

¶19

SHRI. ANJANAREDDY RAGHAVENDRA MAJOR BY AGE R/AT BEDDADORU VILLAGE MADHUGIRI TALUK 572132

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a. QUASH THE E- TENDER NOTICE DTD 15.12.2022 ISSUED BY R3 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. b. QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 27.10.2022 ISSUED BY R3 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B. c. QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 05.11.2022 ISSUED BY R3 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C. d. IN THE ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PRAYER a AND b THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DIRECT R3 CONSIDER THE LETTER 17.11.2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXUREK.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶24

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶29

prayer:

¶30

a. To issue a writ of certiorari and quash the E-tender notice dated 15.12.2022 bearing No. ¸Àj.ºÀUÀÄªÀ/EmÉAqÀgï /03/2022-23 issued by Respondent No.3 produced as Annexure 'A';

¶31

b. To quash the notice dated 27.10.2022 bearing No. ¸Àj.ºÀUÀÄªÀ/E-mÉAqÀgï/ 01/2022-23 issued by Respondent No.3 produced as Annexure-B.

¶32

c. To quash the notice dated 05.11.2022 bearing No. ¸Àj.ºÀUÀÄªÀ/E-mÉAqÀgï/ 02/2022-23 issued by Respondent No.3 produced as Annexure-C.

¶33

d. In the alternative without prejudice to prayer a and b. this Hon'ble Court may direct Respondent No.3 consider the letter 17.11.2022 produced as Annexure-K

¶34

e. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble deems fit to meet the ends of Justice and Equity."

¶35

Heard Sri. Vinay Kuttappa, learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned AGA appearing for the respondent.

¶37

Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:

¶38

On 07.09.2022, respondent No.3 - the Assistant Director

¶39

of Fisheries Department issues a Tender Notification for allotment of fishing rights in Bidarekere-Doddakere Tank, Bidare Village, Madhugiri Taluk for a period of 5 years from

¶40

¶41

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶42

2022-2023 to 2026-2027. The last date for submission of the

¶43

bid was 23.09.2022. The petitioner submits his bid inadvertently quoting the bid amount of Rs.50,30,000/- instead of Rs.5,30,000/- as was to be quoted as the EMD to be paid was Rs.1,08,549/-. The petitioner paid an EMD as was necessary in terms of the Tender Notification.

¶44

The petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder and a contract was executed in favour of the petitioner. Prior to the said issuance of contract, the EMD amount according to the bid amount of the petitioner which was to be at 10% of the EMD amount was demanded and the petitioner claims to have fulfilled the said amount as well. Therefore, the petitioner paid an EMD of Rs.5,30,000/- as against Rs.1,08,549/- that had to

¶45

be paid. After the State entering into a contract with the petitioner, the petitioner claims to have procured equipment and started fishing in the tank. One month after the said event, a notice is issued to the said petitioner demanding additional sum of Rs.45.00 lakhs on 27.10.2022, which according to the State was the amount of bid that the petitioner had submitted on 07.09.2022. This comes as a shock to the petitioner as and

¶46

¶47

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶48

then gets to know that it was out of inadvertence that the petitioner had submitted his bid for Rs.50,30,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) as against Rs.5,30,000/(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). After the receipt of the notice, the petitioner replies bringing into the notice of the State that it was a mistake on his part, to have quoted a bid of Rs.50,30,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). The State rejecting the claim of the petitioner, goes in for a fresh tender on 15.12.2022. It is this act that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Vinay Kuttappa submits that the petitioner out of inadvertence, added a zero at the end, which became Rs.50,30,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) as against Rs.5,30,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). This mistake has now resulted in cancellation of contract of the petitioner and issuance of a fresh Tender notification. It is his emphatic submission that in no fishing tender, any bidder ever has submitted a bid for a huge amount as Rs.50,30,000/for a tank for fishing. He would submit that the action of the

¶50

¶51

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶52

State should be terminated and the petitioner be permitted to continue fishing in terms of the contract that is awarded.

¶53

The learned AGA, Sri. B.V. Krishna on the other hand would seek to refute the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner but would admit, on instructions that the bid of Rs.50,30,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) has never been received for this particular tank for fishing activity in any tender hitherto. He would submit that it is a contract between the State and the petitioner having accepted the terms of contract, the petitioner has to fulfill the terms of the contract, no fault can be found with the impugned action.

¶54

I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶55

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On 07.09.2022, the petitioner submits his bid quoting Rs.50,30,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) as against Rs.5,30,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand only), out of inadvertence by adding an extra '0' (zero). The

¶56

¶57

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶58

explanation of a mistake sounds plausible, as this fish tank has hitherto never received any bid amount of this enormous kind and therefore, it cannot but be told to be a mistake. On this inadvertence, the petitioner enters into a contract with the Government for fishing rights in the aforesaid tank.

¶59

The demand was later made by the State on 05.11.2022 demanding Rs.45.00 lakhs as balance amount of the bid. This comes to the petitioner as a bolt from the blue as the petitioner then realizes that an extra zero had created the problem.

¶60

The petitioner on failing to fulfill the demand made

¶61

by the State, the State then issues a notice to the second highest bidder in the tender process- the H2 . The petitioner

¶62

then replies to the notice contending that it was out of inadvertence that the petitioner had added an extra '0' (zero) to the bid amount and it was a mistake. The plea of inadvertence is acceptable as it is ostensible. The contract is with the petitioner and the State, it is an admitted position that such huge bid amount is never received any time before by the State for the work of fishing in a tank. The State cannot

¶63

¶64

WP No. 24 of 2023

¶65

unjustly enrich themselves by demanding the said amount, mistake being apparent, the petition deserves to succeed notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has entered into a contract on the foundation of the said mistake.

¶66

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. Writ Petition is allowed.

¶69

ii. The notice fresh e-tender dated 15.12.2022 stands quashed and the petitioner shall be permitted to continue with the order.

¶70

iii. The petitioner is directed to make good any amount that is in due in terms of the contract that is awarded to him.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

SJK

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

B. v. Shivakumar v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. v. 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

Chitramala Land and Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Syed Younus Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shwetha M Vs Punith C

C M Mahadevaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Raghunath Setty Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangotri Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Vs State of Karnataka