Writ Petition No. 14525 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18877 WP No. 14525 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14525 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. AKA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, CHITRAKOOT, 230A, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. PALATLA GANESH KUMAR E: [email protected]
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ARJUN RAO., ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. E:[email protected]/ [email protected] - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18877 WP No. 14525 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (MINES) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. E:[email protected] / [email protected] 3. RAICHUR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT: KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED. NO 3 PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 560 001 E: [email protected] REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. 4. KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BROTHERS (COAL SALES) LIMITED A COMPANY EXISTING UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT I.C.P. ATRIA GREEN 163, SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE ROAD, KALIGHAT, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, INDIA - 700 026, E:[email protected] AND, BRANCH OFFICE AT: THAPAR NIKETAN, 7/4, BRUNTON ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18877 WP No. 14525 of 2025 HC-KAR REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M/S M.L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE TECHNICAL BID OF THE R-4 WAS NOT RESPONSIVE AND HENCE THE R-4 WAS NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER BEARING NO. A1 M1 B3/SCCL-ARR- CTA/YTPS/FEBRUARY 2025 (ANNEXURE-E) DTD. 04.02.2025 ISSUED BY R-1 TO R-3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the technical bid of respondent No.4 was not responsive and not eligible under the notice inviting tender at Annexure-'E' dated 04.02.2025. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the financial bid of respondent No.4 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as all actions pursuant thereto. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to proceed with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18877 WP No. 14525 of 2025 HC-KAR consideration of the financial bid after excluding respondent No.4 from the process. 2. It is the case made out by learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa appearing on behalf of petitioner that the fourth respondent's technical bid being non-responsive/ineligible, the question of opening the financial bid would not arise. It is further submitted that once the technical bid is non-responsive, the question of progressing to second stage would not arise. 3. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 would submit that the interference by way of judicial review in such matters at an intermediary stage when the final decision is not taken by Tender Accepting Authority would render the writ petition filed premature. 4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. Shivamogga Smart City - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18877 WP No. 14525 of 2025 HC-KAR Limited, Shivamogga and Another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 4343 and also the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sri G. Shankar v. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited and Others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 4790. 5. Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 asserts that the evaluation by way of initial examination under Rule 24 of the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements Rules, 2000 ('the Rules' for short) and under Rule 24(3), the result of such initial examination, is still not final and a final decision may be taken under Rule 26(1) by the Tender Accepting Authority. It is submitted that the final decision under Rule 26 by the Tender Accepting Authority would invest the Tender Accepting Authority the substantive power to go beyond the initial examination under Rule 24 of the Rules. 6. Said submission is taken note of. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18877 WP No. 14525 of 2025 HC-KAR 7. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that such procedure as made out by learned counsel for respondent Karnataka Power Corporation would be contrary to the tender documents, the stand of learned counsel by respondent No.3 is to be taken to be an accepted procedure i.e., one flowing from the Rules and needless to state that procedure under the rules would even otherwise over-ride the procedure under the tender, if it is in conflict with the statutory Rules. 8. Even otherwise, the Court is of the view that interference at this stage may not be appropriate, as there should be free-play permitted by the decision making Authority and it is an accepted proposition that minor variations in the procedure need not necessarily lead to Court exercising power of interference by way of judicial review. 9. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the contentions of petitioner regarding defects in the technical - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18877 WP No. 14525 of 2025 HC-KAR bid of respondent No.4, are matters that could be taken note of once the Tender Accepting Authority finally takes a decision under Section 14 of the Act. All contentions of
Decision
the petitioner as raised in the writ petition are kept open. 10. The respondent Karnataka Power Corporation to ensure that the procedure of making known the acceptance of bids and the decision of Tender Accepting Authority under Rule 26(2) of the Rules is to be communicated as per the settled procedure. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with the above said observations. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR