Petitioners challenged notices cancelling a tender for shop leasing. The court found the cancellation based on a non-existent council meeting resolution was illegal. The writ petition was allowed, and the notices were quashed.
The three notices dated 29.09.2016 canceling the tenders were quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION No. 5611 OF 2017 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMKUR - 572 101 BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENT
(BY MS.SAKSHI M.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED: 29.09.2016 CANCELLING THE TENDER AT ANNEXURE-F1 AT ANNEX-F2, ANNEX-F3 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CARRY OUT THE TENDER AWARDED AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF LEASE AND WORKS ORDER ANNEXURE-D1 TO D3 AND E1 TO E3 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Ambaji Rao Najre., learned counsel for petitioners has appeared in person.
Ms.Sakshi M.Krishna., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Subramanya.R., for respondent has appeared through video conferencing.
The respondent Corporation in its meeting dated 18.05.2015 passed a resolution to call for tender to put up shops in various conservancy lanes in M.G.Road, Tumkur City. As per the said resolution, the respondent called for a
3
Tender from prospective builders by a notification [Invitation for Expression of Interest], in PRAJA PRAGATHI daily newspaper dated:02.01.2016 and further another notification modifying the last date for filing the tender (Time for Expression of Interest extended) was published in local daily newspaper PRAJA PRAGATHI.
As per the above tender notification, the petitioners applied and their tender was accepted; they were directed to deposit an Annual Lease amount by way of intimation dated 29.02.2016. Accordingly, the petitioners deposited the Annual Lease amount (one-year advance amount) by Demand Draft. The details are as under:
4
Thereafter, the respondent issued a work order after
entering into an agreement of lease on 01.03.2016. The lease was for a period of fifteen years.
As the matter stood thus, all of a sudden, the respondent issued a notice on 29.09.2016 canceling the tender. The said notice is based on the resolution said to have been passed by the Corporation on 29.07.2016. The first petitioner applied to the respondent under RTI Act to furnish a copy of said resolution dated 29.07.2016. The Public Information Officer and the Council Secretary intimated the first petitioner in the form of an endorsement on 08.11.2016 stating that no meeting was held on 29.07.2016.
The petitioners gave representation on 13.10.2016 to the respondent to withdraw the notice dated 29.09.2016 but there was no reply.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners have been left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy
5
and have filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
respondent have urged several contentions.
The principal ground on which this Court is asked to exercise the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is that the unilateral cancellation of the tender based on the alleged resolution dated 29.07.2016 is bad in law.
Learned counsel Sri.Ambaji Rao Najre., in presenting
his argument drew the attention of the Court to the notices issued by the respondent. They are at Annexures F1, F2 & F3.
6
I have perused the same. They are dated 29.09.2016. In the said notices, the respondent Corporation has proceeded to cancel the tender based on the resolution passed in the Council Meeting which appears to have been held on 29.07.2016.
The resolution dated 29.07.2016 is the base for the cancellation of the tender. The petitioners were compelled to seek information regarding the unilateral act of the respondent Corporation canceling the tender. Accordingly, the first petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act. The Public Information Officer and Council Secretary, Tumkur Mahanagara Palike issued an endorsement on 08.11.2016 informing the petitioners that there was no meeting as such as held on 29.07.2016.
I have carefully perused the endorsement dated 08.11.2016. In the endorsement, the Public Information Officer and the Council Secretary of the respondent - Corporation clearly stated that there was no meeting held on 29.07.2016. If that is so, then the respondent
7
Corporation is not justified in canceling the tender based on the Resolution dated 29.07.2016 alleged to have been passed in the Council Meeting.
I may venture to say that the Corporation has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the cancellation of tender is bad. The result is that the notices are liable to be quashed and the writ petition will be allowed.
The writ of certiorari is ordered. The three notices dated 29.09.2016 bearing £ÀA.vÀĪÀÄ¥Á:vÁA±Á/PÉÆmÉñÀ£ï/ ¹Dgï/249/2016-17, £ÀA.vÀĪÀÄ¥Á:vÁA±Á/ PÉÆmÉñÀ£ï/¹Dgï/246/201617 and £ÀA.vÀĪÀÄ¥Á:vÁA±Á/PÉÆmÉñÀ£ï/ ¹Dgï/247/2016-17 issued
by respondent at Annexures-F1, F2 & F3 are quashed.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .
Sd/JUDGE
TKN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether notices cancelling the tender were legally valid given the absence of the alleged council meeting resolution.
Whether the High Court should quash the notices issued by the respondent corporation.
Whether the tender award must be protected against bad-faith cancellation by the authority.
AZMATH ULLA SHARIEF
SHAFEEQ UR REHAMAN
MOHAMMED ASLAM
TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE
JYOTI MULIMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
