M/S Transvision Software and Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 14210 OF 2021 (GM-TEN)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S TRANSVISION SOFTWARE AND DATA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT NO.3B-11, MSI INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560058, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SIR PRAKASH SAJJAN.

¶7

M/S ZYGOX INFOTECH PVT LTD. NO.9/1, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, NEW TIPPASANDRA BANGALORE-560038, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. RAVISHANKAR P.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

B K MAHENDRAKUMAR

¶12

Digitally signed by B KMAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.07 16:11:19 +0530

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶14

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.29, VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, HINAKAL MYSURU-570017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

IDEA INFINITY IT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶18

NO.117, UBIQUITY, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALSO AT NO.218, 5^TH FLOOR, JP ROYALE, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2; SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK AND SYED KAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATES FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1-SERVED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH TENDER ENQUIRY DATED19.7.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DECLARE THAT THE TENDER CLAUSES NO.33 AT SL NO.4 TO 6 MENTIONED IN TENDER ENQUIRY DATED 19.7.2021 ANENXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND VOID; DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PROVIDE FAIR CHANCE TO ALL THE STAKE HOLDERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TENDER PROCESS; DECLARE THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES INITIATED AND CONDUCTED TENDER PROCESS ARE CONTRARY TO THE OBJECT OF THE KARNATAKA TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACT 1999 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners challenges the tender enquiry dated 19.7.2021, the Clauses, and the eligibility criteria stipulated at Sl.Nos.4 to 6 of Clauses 33 to the Tender Enquiry among other reliefs.

¶25

The petitioners are companies incorporated under the Companies Act and asserts that they are in the field of development of software, implementation of E-Governance Projects and carrying out total revenue management systems, and

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶28

also providing software and ITES services to Escoms in the energy Domine.

¶29

The respondent No.2 had floated a tender notification inviting bids for carrying out implementation of smart business management systems by providing web-waste total revenue management etc. The tender notification dated 24.06.2021 was withdrawn on 15.07.2021. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 floated another tender enquiry dated 19.7.2021 for the aforesaid purposes for a period of five years. Petitioners asserts that within 52 minutes of uploading, the said tender enquiry was withdrawn. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued another tender enquiry for the same work on the same day i.e. 19.7.2021.

¶30

The petitioners asserts to have submitted there pre-bid queries and also representations to the second respondent highlighting that the tender conditions are one sided. Petitioners asserts that one more representation was submitted to the first respondent on 29.7.2021. However no steps were taken to alter the one sided conditions prompting the petitioners to file this petition on 4.8.2021.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners argues as follows:

¶32

i) The impugned conditions prescribing the eligibility criteria to participate in the tender process is highly arbitrary and discriminatory and are tailor made to suit a particular entity i.e. respondent No.3 and deprive the petitioners and other similar situated persons from participation in the tender process which

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶35

would have otherwise ensured transparency, fair competition and selection of the most suitable and cost effective offer that meets the requirements of the procurement.

¶36

ii) The reason for floating the impugned tender enquiry after withdrawing the second tender document dated 19.7.2021 was that the tender document was prepared by the respondent No.3 which is evident from the document uploaded which establishes that the respondent No.3 was the author of the said tender document. The manner in which the tender enquiry was floated demonstrates that the tender notification issued by respondent No.2 is actuated by malafides and illegalities

¶37

iii) The amount put to tender is more than two Crores and therefore thirty days minimum time should have been provided for submission of bids. The time provided for submission of bids is ten days thus contravening Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurement Rules 2000.

¶38

iv) The petitioners although have not participated in the tender process can maintain this petition to challenge the validity of the conditions of the tender enquiry, and the requirement to participate in the tender process to maintain a writ petition arises only if there is a challenge to the breach of terms and conditions of the tender enquiry.

¶39

In support, reliance is placed on the following judgments:

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶42

Umesh Kumar Paswan Vs. Union of India 2009 SCC Online Pat 207: AIR 2010 Pat 11 (Single bid was rejected by the Patna High Court) - Para No.12 to 16

¶43

Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation 2005 (80) DRJ 542 (DB) (Single bid was rejected by the Delhi High Court) - para No.15,16, 17,21 & 22

¶44

Bharat Biotech International Limited Vs. A.P. Helath and Medical Housing: 2002 SCC Online AP 1070: (2002) 1 ALD 463 (Single bid was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh High Court) - Para No.52

¶45

Mahesh Varma and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others :2008 (4) MH.L.J. 657 (Single bid was rejected by the Bombay High Court) - Para No.24 to 29

¶46

Sri. K. Nagaraju Vs. the State of Karnataka W.P. No.6517/2017 D.D. 09.08.2018 (Single bid was rejected by the High Court of Karnataka) - Para No.8

¶47

Classic Builder Vs. State of West Bengal 2014 SCC Online Cal 7917 (Single bid was rejected by the Calcutta High Court) - Para No.47 to 53

¶48

Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 - Para No. 34

¶49

Adhichuncanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt Vs. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC Online Kar - Para No.4(d)

¶50

Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka: (2012) 8 SCC 216 - Para No.24

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶53

Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies 2009 (6) SCC 17 - Para No.26

¶54

In response, Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel representing the counsel for the respondent No.2 would argue as follows:

¶55

i) Petitioners have not participated in the tender process and therefore non-participant to a tender as no locus-standi to challenge the same.

¶56

ii) The last date for submission of bids was fixed on 31.07.2021 and the present petition was filed on 4.08.2021, and therefore the petitioners are guilty of delay and latches.

¶57

iii) The validity of the impugned condition can be interfered only if they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malafides. In the instance, the impugned conditions are in realm of an offer to contract and therefore, the conditions are not open to judicial scrutiny. (Michigan Rubber -vs- State of Karnataka, 2012 8 SCC 216, N.G. Projects Limited -vs- Vinod Kumar Jain and Others , (2022) 6 SCC 127)

¶58

The contention of the petitioners that the prescribed qualifying requirements are tailor made to suit respondent No.3 who would alone qualify for the tender is without any substance. However, there were other entities who were also qualified to participate as stated in the statement of objections. It is settled law that the author of the tender documents is the best person to

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶61

appreciate its requirements and interprets its documents. ( AFCONS Infrastructure Limited -vs- Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818, Galaxy Transport Agencies -vs- New J.K Roadways, (2021) 14 SCC 517 )

¶62

The contention of the petitioners that only a single bid was received is actually incorrect since five other entities had submitted their bids. The circulars dated 20.3.2017 and 22.05.2018 issued by Government of Karnataka provides for acceptance of single bid in exception circumstances and in view of the urgency the single bid was accepted for the reasons stated in the memo dated 28.11.2012 by way of affidavit. In similar circumstances, the single bids of the petitioners were accepted and awarded with contracts.

¶63

In para 10 of the statement of objections, the reason for showing the name of respondent NO.3 as the author is explained in detail and therefore the contention of the petitioner that the tender enquiry was prepared by the respondent No.3 is far from truth.

¶64

Earlier tender enquiry which was uploaded was withdrawn as it had technical and typographical errors including the amount put to tender which was not visible since the E- Procurement portal does not provide for making corrections.

¶65

The tender enquiry was issued by reducing the time for submission of bids after obtaining permission from the managing director CESC and therefore the contention of the petitioner that

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶68

the tender enquiry was issued in contravention of Rule 17 of Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurement Rules.

¶69

In support, reliance is placed on the following

¶70

judgments:

¶71

M. Eshappa and Another v. Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd, reported in 2018 OnLine Kar 1123.

¶72

M/s. Sai Trading and another v. Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Limited and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9449/2016. (Raj HC)

¶73

Iqbal Sate V. The Director of Municipal Administration and others, W.P. (MD) No.8413/2018 and W.M.P. (MD) No.7957/2018. (Mad HC)

¶74

W.P. No. 4041/2022- Sri. Durga Enterprises v. The Chief Commissioner, BBMP, order dated 07.03.2022 (HCK).

¶75

National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Limited, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 243.

¶76

Subhir Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2213.

¶77

The learned counsel for respondent No.3 would

¶78

reiterate the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶81

in addition has placed on record the negotiations held between respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 on the E-Procurement Website of respondent No.2.

¶82

After carefully examining the rival contentions of the parties the key points for deliberation are as follows:

¶83

i) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the conditions prescribing eligibility criteria to participate in the tender?.

¶84

ii) Whether the impugned conditions are arbitrary and tailor made to suit respondent No.3? iii) Whether the acceptance of the bid of the respondent No.3 is in conformity with the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurement Act and Rules?

¶85

Point No.1:

¶86

The petitioners have challenged certain conditions prescribing eligibility criteria to participate in the tender process. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.381/2024 referencing to the decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India - vs- Gwalior Jhansi Express Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 243, and in the case of Airport Authority of India -vs- Centre for Aviation Policy Safety and research, 2022 SCC ONline 1334 held that party which does not participate in the process, cannot challenge the process or the tender condition.

¶87

10 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶89

The Apex Court in the case of National Highway Authority of India supra, ruled that only those entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the non-fulfillment or breach of any terms and conditions of the tender document concerned. Therefore, there is no bar for challenging the conditions without participating in the tender process and the bar can be invoked only when there is challenge to the non-fulfillment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the tender document.

¶90

In the case of Airport Authority of India, the challenge to the tender conditions was by a non-profit organization and when the writ petition before the high court was not in the nature of public interest litigation, the NGO would not have locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the tender conditions.

¶91

Therefore, when the petitioners do not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria to participate in the tender process can maintain a writ petition to challenge the conditions if they are on the face of it, arbitrary discriminatory and actuated by malafides. The present petition filed by the petitioners without participating is held to be maintainable.

¶92

Point-2:

¶93

The reason for showing the name of respondent No.3 is as author is explained by the respondent No.2 in the statement of objection which reads thus:

¶94

"10. With respect to the contention that the impugned tender is authored by Respondent No.3 as Respondent No.3's name was

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶97

shown as author in the tender document in word format, it is submitted that the same is misleading, false and bereft of merits. The reason for name of Respondent No.3 being shown as author is as follows:

¶98

a. If any word (.docx) file is created/saved from any computer, by default the name of the computer (i.e. name given in the Windows OS for the computer) will be saved/shown automatically.

¶99

b. CESC has awarded the work of "Material Management Software (MMS)" (ERP Module) for managing the purchase and utilization of materials by the CESC vide DWA No: CESC/SEE/EE-1/AEE-1/project/2016-17/CYS-51 Date: 13.04.2016 to Respondent No.3. This software is majorly used in the Purchase section of CESC and store offices. Said MMS project support and maintenance is done by Respondent No.3.

¶100

c. While using the MMS software, Purchase section personnel faced technical issue and instructed Respondent No.3 to resolve the same on urgent basis as it is critical and hampering the day to day activity of the Purchase section of CESC. In this regard a letter was also sent to Respondent No.3 on 09.07.2021. Copy of the letter dated 09.07.2021 is produced herewith as Annexure-R2.

¶101

d. Representatives of the Respondent No.3 inspected MMS software issue and informed that the issue faced was due to Virus/hardware problem in the computer and replaced the computer/hard disk with a spare from Respondent No.3 until CESC computer is repaired/fixed (as part of the MMS contract)

¶102

e. CESC officers and Data Entry Operators were using the standby computer supplied by Respondent No.3 for day to day activity of the Purchase section which also includes tendering activities like drafting documents, downloading/uploading documents etc. Hence, author name in the word document was displayed that of Respondent No.3. This was not for the reason that the tender documents were authored by Respondent No.3 as contended by, the Petitioner.

¶103

12 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶105

f. The impugned Tender is continuation of the previous Tender No: CESC/GM(P)/C2-5050 dated 24-06-2021 which was recalled due to some technical and administrative grounds. The documents uploaded in the previous Tender i.e. Tender No: CESC/GM(P)/C2- 5050 dated 24-06-2021 is also a word file without name of the author (File Name: "cesc_trm_2021 bid document.docx").

¶106

g. As the impugned Tender is continuation of previous tender, the Officer of Respondent No.2 had downloaded the previous tender on the Spare Computer provided by Respondent No.3 as explained above and same was opened and after preliminary modifications such NIT number, date, etc in the tender document and clicked "Saved As" with new file name as "cesc_trm_2021 bid document_final (new).docx". As this action/step was done from the spare computer provided by the Respondent No.3, the author Name is updated as "Idea Infinity" automatically as the downloaded tender document did not have an Author name.

¶107

h. As per the standard review process the said document was reviewed and modified by the various officers at different levels of the CESC in various computers of the CESC and hence "last saved by" is displayed as "CESC". It is submitted that the tender document had undergone revisions 49 time sat CESC. Hence the allegation of the petitioner that document is authored by Respondent No.3 and tailor-made to him is false and hereby denied.

¶108

i. In respect of the earlier tender i.e. Tender No: CESC/GM(P)/C2-5050 dated 24-06-2021 which was on similar lines containing similar conditions, writ proceedings had been instituted by M/s BCITS Pvt. Ltd. (WP No.12651/2021) and in the said proceedings no allegation of the 3^rd Respondent being the author of the tender was made. Copy of the flow chart explaining the above sequence of events is produced herewith as Annexure-R3."

¶109

The explanation offered for the name of the respondent No.3 shown as author of tender enquiry cannot be said to be false or incorrect and this Court cannot go into the technicalities in relation to the same unless any substantive

¶110

13 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶112

evidence is produced to disbelieve the explanation offered by the respondent No.2.

¶113

The respondent No.2 in the statement of objection has stated at 7.45 p.m. was withdrawn as it had technical and typographical errors and the estimated value of the tender document was not visible and there are no features-provisions in the E-Procurement portal to correct such errors.

¶114

Clause 33(4) of the Tender Enquiry limits the experience only to Escoms of Karnataka during the last five years. Clause 33(4) reads thus:

¶115

"The Bidder shall have experience of implementing "Billing & Collection Software solution" OR "Web based Total Revenue Management Software"; through its own software or through COTS (SAP/Oracle, etc.) software in at least two ESCOMS of Karnataka during last five years, but experience is must for a continues period of Twelve months in each utility and project is operational as on the date of the bid. Out of the above projects the billing operation for at least 22 lakhs bills per month should be in running condition in any single order, the value of such Order shall be at least Rs 75 Crores."

¶116

The petitioner complains that the experience should not be limited to Escoms in Karnataka but also the experience in Escoms/Dscoms of other States and this condition is tailor made only to suit respondent No.3.

¶117

The respondent No.2 in the statement of objections has stated that clause 33(4) is stipulated by QR Code. The billing tariff, tariffs categorization and other various terms vary from one State to another. If the Software/service rendered in another State

¶118

14 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶120

cannot be immediately implemented/ replicated in Karnataka then it will requires considerable effort and time to reconfigure the TRM Software to fit into the requirements of KERC. The TRM Contract of the existing service provider ended on 31.08.2021 and therefore there was immediate need for ruling out of a new software technology so as to ensure the immediate and accurate rollout of the software within the required timeline.

¶121

Similar tender enquiry was floated by Escom wherein the bidder should have independently implemented the total revenue management system for at least one Escom in Karnataka and it did not provide for experience in any other Escom in India. The petitioner No.1 was the sole successful bidder in the said tender enquiry. Therefore the petitioners having benefited from the similar conditions in respect of a similar work in HESCOM, now turn around and contend that the said condition is arbitrary and discriminatory so as to suit respondent No.3.

¶122

The petitioner No.2 in the pre-bid queries submitted to the second respondent at annexure-D has stated that as per the clause 33(4) apart from the respondent No.3 two other entities namely Infosys Technologies Limited and Nsoft India Services Pvt. Limited will alone qualify to participate in the tender and no other agencies are working on two similar projects in Escoms of Karnataka which minimum 25Lakh billing activities per month. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the requirement to participate in the tender should have experience of implementing the software in at least two Escoms is arbitrary and discriminatory

¶123

15 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶125

and tailor made to suit respondent No.3 is not acceptable. Clause 33(5) of Tender Enquiry read thus:

¶126

"Bidder shall be an OEM/Supplier of Android OS Based integrated Spot Billing Devices (SBD) as per the specification of the tender and have supplied and maintaining at least One Thousand numbers of similar specification of said SBD to any ESCOMs of Karnataka for the purpose of billing, spot collection and other activities. If the Bidder is a supplier then MAF as per Annexure-VIII from the OEM shall be submitted along with the required documentary evidence of the OEM who have met the past supply & maintenance of similar specification experience as specified."

¶127

The Clause provides a choice to the bidder who can be either an original equipment manufacturer or a supplier who provide details of thousand numbers of the intended equipment being used by any Escoms of Karnataka and such equipment should have been used for billing collection and other activities. If the bidder is not a OEM of Android, then he shall submit manufacturers authorization form as per Annexure-VIII from the OEM. The petitioners who are not the OEM had the option to submit MAS and therefore, it cannot be said that clause 33(5) is tailor made to suit respondent No.3 who is only original equipment manufacturer. Clause 33(6) of theTender Enquiry reads thus:

¶128

"The bidder should have Experience in installation, configuration of NFC/RFID tags with least Two Lakhs quantity along with NFC/RFID tag enabled reading through the Spot billing device (SBD)/ Hand Held Devices/Smart Phones as per the scope of work specified in the Tender to any ESCOMs of Karnataka or Government Department of Karnataka."

¶129

As per Clause 33(6) the bidder should have experience of installation, configuration of NCF/RFID tags with at least two

¶130

16 -

¶131

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶132

Lakh quantity in any Escoms or department of Government of Karnataka. The respondent No.3 in the statement of objection has stated that the said technology is critical as it enables CESC in ensuring that accurate bills have been given and no bogus bills are raised. Similar technology is being used in RAPDRP areas and the said technology is now sought to be integrated in non-RAPDRP areas. The said clause is incorporated to ensure that a person with past experience participates in the tender and the scope to participate is widened to a bidder to supply the tax to department of Government of Karnataka. The consumer base of CESE is in non-RAPDRP areas is 22 Lakh customers and experience of 10% of the same is prescribed as qualification requirement.

¶133

The respondent No.2 has contended that it has no data as to whether the other contractors namely N-soft and Infosys have provided similar services to other departments of Government of Karnataka. The explanation offered by the respondent No.2 for incorporating Clause 33(6) cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory and so incorporated to favour the 3^rd respondent.

¶134

The petitioner had not produced any substantive material to establish that the impugned conditions on the face of it are arbitrary and discriminatory and tailor made to favour the 3^rd respondent.

¶135

Point No.3:

¶136

The petitioner has produced the circular dated 20.3.2017 issued by the Government of Karnataka defining the phrase the 'single bid' and it means that those tenders where only

¶137

17 -

¶138

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶139

one bid is received before technical qualification is done and in cases where certain bids are received before technical qualification, but only the one bidder qualifies for financial bid, he should be treated as a single bid. As per the guidelines issued in the circular dated 22.5.2018, in the event of receiving the single bid the tender inviting authority should reject the bid and issue fresh tender notification.

¶140

In the instance, 5 entities had submitted their bids and the technical bids of the other bidders except the technical bid of the respondent No.3 were rejected. As per the circular dated 22.5.2018, the tender inviting authority is also empowered to exercise the option of awarding the work even to a single bidder in accordance with the provisions of the KTPP Act, 1999 under exceptional circumstances. In the reply to the memo dated 28.11.2002 by way of affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated there were exceptional circumstances which necessitated the continuation of the tender process and the same reads thus:

¶141

5.1. Emergency to find new vendor:

¶142

I state that the generation of bills through TRM forms the backbone of the ESCOM's operations as it is the primary means of revenue generation and therefore it was just and necessary to award the tender immediately without resorting to a re-tender. It is submitted that the work awarded to M/s. BCITS was ending on 31.08.2021 and the Respondent No.2 was under an emergency to find a service provider before the due date i.e., 31.08.2021, and granted the award to Respondent No.3.

¶143

5.2. Implement new technology and health hazard of old technology:

¶144

18 -

¶145

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶146

I state that Respondent No.2 wanted to implement new technology by way of bringing into use the single system SBD as the same was being followed by other ESCOMs already. One of the reasons for implementing the said new technology was due to several complaints being filed by employees about the harm caused by two-piece/Bluetooth printers (Annexures R-6 and R-7 to Statement of Objections dated 29.07.2021 filed in W.P.No.13234/2021).

¶147

The estimated value of the tender document was more than Rs.2 Crores and the minimum time provided for submission of bids is 30 days as stipulated under Rule 17(1) (b) KTPP Rules 2000. In the instance, the time was reduced after obtaining permission from the higher authority superior to the tender inviting authority as required under Rule 17(2) of the Rules 2000. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the tender document was floated contrary to Rule 17(1) (b) of the Rules is without any substance.

¶148

The extracts of the minutes of the 88^th Meeting of the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 2 held on 18.9.2021 indicated the price quoted by the petitioner was revised after negotiation stating that the price quoted is competitive and far-less compared to the previous TRM Contract dated 25.7.2016.

¶149

The respondent No.3 has placed on record the price negotiation held between the respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 on the E-procurement website of the respondent No.2. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the negotiation of the price between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was not on the E- procurement website of the respondent No.2 as mandated in the circular dated 22.5.2018 is without any substance.

¶150

19 -

¶151

NC: 2025:KHC:5413 WP No. 14210 of 2021

¶152

Furthermore, the circular dated 22.05.2018 stipulates that in case if a single bid is received, priority must be given to reject the same and invite fresh tender. However, if the single bid were to be considered in exceptional and special circumstances, and the bid amount is more than 5% of the tender value, negotiations shall have to be conducted on the e-portal. In the instant case, the bid value of the respondent No.3 is less than the estimated value of the tender and hence does not require any negotiation on the e-portal. Therefore, the said circular is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

¶153

In light of the foregoing, the writ petition lacks merit and substance, and therefore is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

¶154

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶155

AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 167

M/S Transvision Software and Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Transvision Software and Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Kuberdas Shah Alias Dipak K Shah Vs State of Karnataka

Afzal S/O Abdul Rehaman Rajagoli Vs the State by Market Ps

Vinayak S/O Narayansa Khode Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Harish N v Vs the State by Cbi/Scb/Chennai

B L Shastry Vs the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Rakshath Kashyap Mayakonda Harish S/O Mayakonda C Harish Vs Smt Nivedita W/O Rakshath Kashyap Mayakonda Harish