Allowed

T S Gopikrishna S/O Ramachandra Achar v. the Executive Officer

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/103474/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition to quash an order cancelling a tender. The court held that when only two participants existed and one was declared ineligible as a minor, the authority should have considered the other applicant rather than cancelling the process and calling for a fresh tender.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.04.2024 was quashed. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's requisition and pass suitable orders within three weeks if eligibl

T S Gopikrishna S/O Ramachandra Achar Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16441 WP No. 103474 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103474 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

T.S. GOPIKRISHNA S/O. RAMACHANDRA ACHAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ANEGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶10

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, ANEGUNDI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶13

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶16

a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.GRAPAM.AA/2024/2025 DATED 05/04/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶17

b) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REQUISITION MADE BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND D1 DATED 19/06/2024.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16441 WP No. 103474 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-A calling for fresh tender by the respondents.

¶25

Respondent No.2 had issued short term tender notification for the year 2024-25 to 2025-26 to “Anegundi Navavrundavan Yantrikruta Nave” on 04.03.2024 by fixing the date of submission of the papers on 15.03.2024.

¶26

The petitioner herein submitted his tender document following requisite rules and regulations and paying requisite fees. On acceptance of tender document, respondent No.2 conducted proceedings and on the same date i.e., on 15.03.2024 after scrutinising the document, tender accepting authority, accepted the document declaring one Nikhil Nayak as a successful bidder.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16441 WP No. 103474 of 2024

¶28

It is contention of the petitioner that the said

¶29

successful bidder Nikhil Nayak was a minor, despite the same being intimated, which was not considered, petitioner made a requisition to the higher authority, to take action about the arbitrary process, and abuse of process of law. On the basis of the requisition, by way of objections to the selection of successful bidder Nikhil Nayak, respondent No.2 immediately passed an order of cancellation of the entire tender process, which is impugned in this petition.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upon cancellation of the tender process, the said successful bidder Nikhil Nayak filed petition in W.P.No.102822/2024 (Gm-Ten), before this Court aggrieved by the said withdrawal of the tender. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2024, reserving liberty to the petitioner therein to avail remedy in the manner known to law.

¶31

It is the grievance of the petitioner herein that

¶32

the entire process of withdrawing unilaterally the tender at

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16441 WP No. 103474 of 2024

¶34

Annexure-A by the authority is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary. It is apparently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire process of inviting tender and consideration of tender is only to benefit the successful bidder. Earlier no procedure is followed as contemplated under Section 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 with regard to the petitioner being ineligible or not being qualified or no such communication is issued to the petitioner or published as per the Act. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Annexure-A.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed at Annexure-A, but for the reason that this Court in the earlier round of litigation filed by the successful bidder questioning the very same notification which was dismissed and there being a need to call for fresh tender, withdrew the tender notification to call for fresh notification inviting tenders for allotment. Therefore, he

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16441 WP No. 103474 of 2024

¶37

contends there is no illegality or perversity in the order and no arbitrariness either.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, apparently there is no dispute that the successful bidder was not successful in the writ petition filed by him, pursuant to which, withdrawal of the tender was issued at Annexure-A and respondents are intending to issue fresh notification. It is not in dispute that there were only two participants. Successful bidder, though declared successful, was disqualified for being a minor at the time of applying for the tender and successful bidder filed petition challenging the said Annexure-A, of withdrawing the notification, which came to be dismissed by this Court.

¶39

As stated herein supra, when there were only two participants in the tender, the respondents, after declaring the successful bidder to be ineligible due to reasons of him being a minor, could have considered the application of the other only tender participant, and there being no other persons, could have considered on the

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16441 WP No. 103474 of 2024

¶41

basis of his qualification, eligibility and other necessary requirements as per law. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was ineligible. Having not done so, the impugned order at Annexure-A deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. This petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 05.04.2024 is hereby quashed.

¶45

iii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the requisition made by the petitioner vide Annexures-D and D1 dated 19.06.2024 and if the petitioner is eligible and fulfils all the requirements, suitable orders shall be passed in accordance with law within the time frame of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶46

KGK / CT-MCK

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

¶48

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

T S Gopikrishna S/O Ramachandra Achar v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T S Gopikrishna S/O Ramachandra Achar v. the Executive Officer

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

Sanjay W/O Yashwant Suntakar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Shivashakathi Recreation Club -R- Vs the State of Karnataka

Union Bank of India Vs State of Karnataka

Anil S/O Pandurang Kurne Vs the Managing Director

Kum. Channabasawwa Irappa Hongal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraj Padiyannavar Urf Walikar, Vs the State of Karnataka