Partly allowed

Raju Honnayya Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024WP/105304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the court quashed an order by the principal secretary quashing a work order. The court directed the respondents to initiate the tender process by granting the petitioner an opportunity to furnish missing experience documents without calling a fresh tender.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to initiate the tender process by granting the petitioner an opportunity to furnish relevant documents of experience and completion cer

Raju Honnayya Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 105304 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAJU HONNAYYA NAYAK, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTORS, R/O. #240/1, LAXMESHWAR, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581314.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. GURUDAS S. KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND TENDER APPELLANT AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-580001.

¶11

THE DIRECTOR AND JOINT SECRETARY, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND

¶12

MANJANNA E

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

SANITATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-580001.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT, KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA-581306.

¶16

M/S AMAR INFR PROJECTS, C-109, GANDHI NAGAR, KAVOOR, MANGALORE-575015.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADV. FOR SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R4)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.

¶22

b) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO COMPLY BY WORK ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F I.E., GraKuNi AND Nai/Karwar/P.B.1/Gokarna/I.No:/8117/KaAa/2024-25/614 DATED 08/08/2024 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Gurudas S. Kannur on behalf of the learned counsel Sri.Maqboolahamed M. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel Sri.Anandarama K.N. for respondent No.4.

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-M and for a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to comply the work order at Annexure-F.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶29

This petitioner is a recruited contractor holding licence from the Karnataka State Public Works Department carrying out works in various Rural Development Panchayat Works Department successfully for several years earning good reputation.

¶30

The respondent Nos.1 to 3 procured tender calling for operation and maintenance (O & M) of 7 villages and Gokarna village of Kumta taluk, Uttara Kannada district. The tender period for operation and maintenance was for a period of three years. The respondent No.2 had issued clearance to respondent No.3 to carry on the process of calling tender. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 published certain qualification required for the floating of tender. Petitioner being reputed contractor, qualifying for the tender process and on the basis that petitioner had completed the work of similar nature, valued for more than Rs.39,24,212/-, the work order came to be issued and the tender was allotted to the petitioner on

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶32

08.08.2024 and the site was handed over on 09.08.2024

¶33

to the petitioner.

¶34

This being the state of affairs, the respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 challenging the work order, allotment of tender issued to the petitioner. Due to the challenge so made by the respondent No.4, the supply of water to the villagers was abruptly stopped and seven villages and Gokarna were effected, due to the stoppage of supply of water.

¶35

On the basis of the appeal preferred, respondent No.1 passed an impugned order and upheld the appeal, directed respondent No.2 and 3 to call for fresh tender and directed the work to be carried over by its existing tender holders in the interregnum period, by coming to a conclusion, that there was certain discrepancy in the disputed date of completion of work, as noted in the tender bid.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶37

It is the contention of the learned senior

¶38

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the action of respondent No.1 is illegal and liable to be quashed for the reason that the respondents-Authorities have not looked into the relevant satisfactory work completion which was completed by the petitioner, which

¶39

has been placed before the Authorities at the appellate stage and the document which was produced earlier was not looked into, so also the tender qualification requirement does not specifically state that it the necessity to have satisfactory completion of O & M of 2 years as the

¶40

petitioner had complied with all other requirements required under the tender application. Therefore, it is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has the necessary work experience for having satisfactorily completed for more than 2 years, which ought to have been looked into by the appellate authority before passing the impugned order which has not been done. Therefore, there is violation of principles of

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶42

natural justice and the same requires to be rectified by

¶43

this Court by setting aside the impugned order.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Sri.Ananarama K.N., vehemently contends that the tender document clearly specifies the necessary requirement of qualification for participating in the tender more specifically Clause 3 of the tender specifies one of the requirements and the petitioner having not fulfilled Clause 3.2(d) would not be eligible for participation in the tender, as he has not fulfilled the necessary requirement as called for in the tender. However, the same was granted on the appeal filed by the respondent No.4, having realized, the appellate authority passed an order which does not call for interference, on the basis of the materials placed by the petitioner himself before the tender process authority. Under the circumstance, no fault can be found with the appellate authority in passing the impugned order and initiating the process of tender from the stage of technical evaluation which is correct and the same is not malafide or

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶46

ill-will as it is on the basis of the materials borne from the tender requirement. Under the circumstances, he seeks to dismiss the petition and affirm the order passed by the appellate authority.

¶47

The similar argument is also canvassed by the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State, contending that, as on the date of tender, filing and submitting of documents, no documents were produced by the petitioner to comply with the documents as stipulated under Clause 3.2(c) & (d). Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is correct and does not call for any interference.

¶48

Learned High Court Government Pleader also points out to this Court to Clause 23 of the tender document, which stipulates employers right to accept any tender or reject any or all the tenders specified therein.

¶49

Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶51

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, it is to be seen that the petitioner had applied for the tender by uploading some documents with regard to necessary qualification as required. It is the contention of the petitioner that the authority has not looked into the documents which is subsequently furnished to show that he fulfills the criteria required under Clause 3.2(d) and it is not a mandatory clause but the clause to show the experience for having satisfactorily completed O & M work of supply of water for two year, which he has and the necessary document by mistake was not produced at the time of filing the tender application.

¶52

On the appeal preferred by respondent No.4, the appellate authority has upheld the appeal and directed initiation of process of tender from the stage of technical evaluation and till the issuance of fresh order, the respondent No.4 was ordered to continue the supply of water to the villages hereinabove mentioned.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶54

The orders so passed by the appellate authority cannot be interfered with regard to continuation of supply of water. However with regard to initiation of tender from the stage of technical evaluation, will have to be interfered, considering the fact of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner has necessary required document to show that he is experienced for having satisfactorily completed O & M of supply of water for a period of two years but for the reason best known, he was unable to produce the document.

¶55

The matter could be resolved by directing the respondents to initiate the process by considering the document of satisfactory experience of the petitioner, if any, produced as on the date of filing of the tender, more specifically, with regard to Clause 3.2(c) & (d) without initiating any fresh tender and continue from the stage of verification of documents of the tenderers and proceed further. Till then, however, it is made clear that the

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶57

respondent No.3 shall continue the supply of water to the villages. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to continue the tender process by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish relevant document of experience, completion certificate as mentioned in Clause 3.2(d) and the respondent No.4 would be at liberty to object or raise any objection with regard to any such document that is produced and the respondent No.3 shall consider and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

¶60

ii. The entire process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15030 WP No. 105304 of 2024

¶62

iii. In the meanwhile, there shall not be any interruption or interference by the petitioner for supply of water to the above mentioned villages.

¶63

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶64

KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Raju Honnayya Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Honnayya Nayak 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Greenwood Internatinoal English Medium Vs State of Karnataka

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar

Giriraj S/O Virupakshappa Gireppanavar Vs the Authorised Officer

Uddappa S/O Laxmappa Parasannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vijaykumar B Patil Vs the Government of Karnataka

Bhushan S/O Vasant Bangodi Vs Jayashankar Kalkundrikar Multi-Purpose