Disposed

Shivaraj S/O Sangappa Mali v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/106210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Class-I contractor whose tender for annual maintenance of lift irrigation schemes was rejected over a disputed Work Done Certificate sought quashing of the tender notifications. The court held an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 was the proper remedy and disposed of the petition with liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to petitioner to appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 1999 before the prescribed authority; interim order to continue one week only.

Shivaraj S/O Sangappa Mali Vs the Principal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 106210 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVARAJ S/O. SANGAPPA MALI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: CLASS 1 CONTRACTOR, R/O. #1-3-149 WARD NO.1, KALMATHA ROAD, RAMPUR PETE, GANGAVATHI-583227, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AVINASH MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION & WATER DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M I & GWD, DIVISION KOPPAL-583231, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶17

THE SUPERINTEND ENGINEER, M I & GWD CIRCLE, KALABURGI-585101, TQ/DIST: KALABURGI.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶20

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

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶22

i. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO’S: MI/2024-25/OW/WORK INDENT2548 AND MI/2024-25/OW/WORK-INDENT2559 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND C ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS THE TENDER WITH REGARD TO ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FOR PUMP AND MOTOR NO-02 AND 03 AND CIVIL WORKS IN GONDBAL, HYATI, MUNDARAGI SITE-01, MUNDARAGI SITE-02, LACHANAKERI, KARKIHALLI SITE-01, KARKIHALLI SITE-02, CHIKKABAGANAL AND HIREBAGANAL LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES OF KOPPAL TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE FOR PUMP AND MOTOR NO-02 AND 03 AND CIVIL WORKS IN TIGARI, HANKUNTI, MATTUR, NEERALAGI AND KATARKI LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES OF KOPPAL TALUK AND KOPPAL DISTRICT TO THE 2^ND RESPONDENT FOR DIFFERENT WORKS.

¶23

ii. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE TENDER PARTICIPATED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE TENDERS WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION.

¶24

iii. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶30

AGA for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶31

2. Petitioner is questioning the tender notification bearing No.MI/2024-25/OW/WORK INDENT2548 and MI/2024-25/OW/WORK INDENT2559 vide Annexures-B and C issued by the 2^nd respondent insofar as the tender with regard to annual maintenance for Pump and Motor No.02 and 03 and civil works in Gondbal, Hyati, Mundaragi Site no.1, Mundaragi Site No.2, Chikkabaganal and Hirebaganal Lift Irrigation Schemes of Koppal Taluka and Koppal District and annual maintenance expenditure for pump and motor No.02 and 03. Petitioner is a Class-I Civil Contractor having experience in the construction civil works including housing development works and other activities of Government related institutions.

¶32

3. Responder No.2 invited the tender for annual maintenance of Pump and Motor No.02 and 03 and civil works in Gondbal, Hyati, Mundaragi Site-01, Mundaragi

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶34

Site-02, Lachanakeri, Karkihalli Site-01, Karkihalli Site-02, Chikkabaganal and Hirebaganal Lift Irrigation Schemes of Koppal Taluk, Koppal District and Annual Maintenance Expenditure for Pump and Motor No.02 and 03 and civil works in Tigari, Hunkunti, Mattur, Neeralagi and Katarki lift irrigation schemes of Koppal Taluk and Koppal District.

¶35

The notification was issued for the year 2023-2024 for different tender amounts scheduling the last date for submission of tender on 03.10.2024. Petitioner was one of the aspirants, who participated in the tender. Out of four persons, three persons along with the petitioner had participated. The tender of petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that he has not provided the Work Done Certificate.

¶36

4. It is the contention of petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has furnished the Work Done Certificate in the tender document, but the same has not been considered by the respondents. Therefore according to the petitioner he has satisfied all the requirements to be eligible in the tender. It is also the contention of petitioner that he has

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶38

submitted last 5 years turnover and Chartered Accountant has issued the certificate that the Work Done Certificate with regard to 6 crores transaction made in the past years. Though all the necessary documents have been produced, the tender of the petitioner came to be rejected for the reason stated here and above that more specifically for not producing the Work Done Certificate. Hence, petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the said order passed at Annexures-B and C.

¶39

5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is eligible to participate in the tender and having performed several work contracts with the Government departments and having submitted the relevant certificates, the respondents ought not to have rejected his tender form on the ground of non-production of tender Work Done Certificate, which has already been produced along with the tender documents. Hence, the impugned order passed is unsustainable and same requires to be set aside.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶41

6. Per Contra, learned AGA representing respondents contends that the petition itself is not maintainable, primarily for the reason that any order that is passed against the tender accepting authority is liable to be challenged in appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the Act, 1999’) to the prescribed authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Having not done so, the petitioner having rushed to this Court, is not maintainable and he will have to be relegated to approach the appellate authority to seek appropriate remedies. It is further contended by learned AGA that on submission of the tender applications and forms along with the documents online. The respondents on scrutinizing the relevant forms and documents realized that the Work Done Certificate has not been furnished in the manner that is required to be produced, namely the Work Done Certificate is to be duly signed by the officers not below the rank of Executive Engineer of the concerned division.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶43

7. Therefore, the document so produced by the petitioner alleging and claiming it to be the Work Done Certificate, cannot be accepted as no proper dispatch number and date is mentioned in the said certificate, thereby creating a doubt in the mind of authorities to accept such a certificate. Under the circumstances, he contends that there is no illegality or arbitrariness or violation of principles of any rights. Hence the present petition cannot be maintained. Even otherwise learned AGA has contended that the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the prescribed authority to challenge the order of the tender accepting authority, if he is aggrieved by any such orders by preferring an appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 1999.

¶44

8. Under the circumstances, there is sufficient force in the submission made by learned AGA with regard to the present petition not being maintainable and the petitioner will have to be relegated to the prescribed authority to challenge the order, which is questioned herein in the

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16278 WP No. 106210 of 2024

¶46

manner known to law by preferring an appeal under

¶47

Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to

¶50

the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act, 1999

¶51

before the prescribed authority to seek

¶52

necessary remedies and orders in accordance with law.

¶53

(ii) As the interim order was operating till date

¶54

same shall continue for a period of one week and if no such appeal is filed within a week, the order would automatically stand vacated.

¶55

Accordingly ordered.

¶56

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶57

CKK CT-MCK

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Shivaraj S/O Sangappa Mali v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaraj S/O Sangappa Mali v. the Principal Secretary

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

The Principal Vs the Registrar

Shri. Ashok Sidram Wadeyar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Lakshman Murthy Naik Alias Laxman Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Talari Ambamma W/O Late Erayya Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Seva Samiti (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanjay W/O Yashwant Suntakar Vs the State of Karnataka