Srk Manpower Agency Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:14030 WP No. 2114 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2114 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRK MANPOWER AGENCY, NEAR SAMUDHAYABHAVAN, 3RD CROSS, S.N. NAGARA, SAGAR - 577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, REG. UNDER PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES (REGISTRATION) ACT 2005.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 23.

¶16

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 23.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:14030 WP No. 2114 of 2025

¶19

4. ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER, PANDIT GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581 401.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAI, HCGP)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO ISSUE WORK ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER TO SUPPLY THE READY MEALS (FRESH AND FIRST QUALITY) (GROUP-A) AND BREAD (GROUP-B) TO THE INPATIENTS OF PANDIT GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRSI, BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS, VIDE ANNEXURE-H, H1 AND H2. AND DATED 18/12/2024 AND 2/1/2025 AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶24

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayers.

¶29

"i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 to 4 to issue work order in favour of the petitioner to supply the ready meals (Fresh & First Quality) (Group-A) and bread (Group-B) to the inpatients of Pandit Government General Hospital, Sirsi, by considering the

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:14030 WP No. 2114 of 2025

¶32

representations dated 18.12.2024 and 02.01.2025 vide Annexure-H, H1 & H2.

¶33

ii. Issue such other writ or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

Heard Shri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel

¶35

appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶36

A notice inviting tender comes to be issued on 25.06.2024, which was to be operational for a period of one year for supply of ready meals(fresh and first quality) to the Pandit Government General Hospital at Sirsi in terms of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The petitioner emerges successful in the said tender, the price was not acceptable to the respondent-State and therefore, the work order was not issued to the petitioner.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions submitted that he would match the price that the State is wanting and therefore, this Court directed the petitioner to sit across with the State and settle the dispute, as the dispute was concerning only financial. The order dated 18.03.2025 reads as follows:

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14030 WP No. 2114 of 2025

¶39

"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶40

The petitioner emerges as the successful bidder. Noticing the right of the petitioner, this Court, on 14.03.2025, had passed the following order:

¶41

"The petitioner pursuant to the subject tender emerges as the lowest bidder. Prices are negotiated with the petitioner. Respondent No.4 recommends the case of the petitioner to be accepted and work order to be issued from the hands of the respondent No.3 - State.

¶42

A query is raised by respondent No.3 on 10.12.2024 with regard to the pricing of the petitioner. This is clarified by respondent No.4, immediately. Despite the clarification, no work order is issued till today. It appears that the work order is not issued only to support the person, who is already supplying. Therefore, the State appears to be playing with tenders.

¶43

List this matter on 18.03.2025, in the fresh matters list."

¶44

Learned HCGP on instructions would submit that the price at which the petitioner quoted would is not viable for the reason that it is too high and the petitioner himself is supplying in the neighbouring districts at Rs.150/-, now the tender is accepted at Rs.250/-, which is too exorbitant.

¶45

It is un-understandable as to how the petitioner with that figure emerges successful and negotiations take place with the petitioner with regard to the price and now at the time when the work order is to be issued, all kinds of objections are projected by the State without scrutinizing everything before declaring the petitioner to be the successful bidder.

¶46

Therefore, in the light of him getting some semblance of right, I deem it appropriate to direct the

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:14030 WP No. 2114 of 2025

¶49

petitioner to sit with the officers and negotiate the price, if necessary and bring about a solution, by the next date.

¶50

List the matter on 24.03.2025 in the 'fresh matters list'."

¶51

The petitioner was further directed to file an affidavit of undertaking with regard to the price that he has quoted in the negotiation. The affidavit is also filed before the Court.

¶52

In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, as this emerged to be a one-off situation and as a one-off solution, the affidavit is accepted and a direction is issued to the State to issue the work order in favour of the petitioner, strictly in consonance with the prices that is indicated in the affidavit of undertaking by the petitioner. The work order shall be issued in the next one week.

¶53

The learned High Court Government Pleader would

¶54

submit that the term of the tender was only for one year, which would expire by the end of July-2025.

¶55

The petitioner, though has emerged successful, has not been in a position to enjoy the fruits of such success, as no work order was issued owing to certain dispute with regard to the price that he had quoted. If that be so, the petitioner and

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:14030 WP No. 2114 of 2025

¶58

the State were in a dialogue, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be awarded the contract only for a period of three months. Therefore, the period of contract shall commence from the date on which it is awarded and would be in operation for a period of one year from the date of such issuance.

¶59

In the light of this solution being stuck as a one-off solution, the petitioner shall not draw any right from this order to negotiate future terms or claim future right in any tender that is issued.

¶60

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶61

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK

Srk Manpower Agency v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srk Manpower Agency v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvathamma Narshimaiah Charitable Trust Vs the Authorized Officer

Smt Nandini Sultana Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Sri Kallamalige Ista Devatha Mundithaya Daivastana, Vs State of Karnataka

Mr C K Mallikarjuna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Sathish Vs the Chief Superintendent

Thallihalla Krishne Gowda Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Karnataka