BY SRI.SESHU v. HCGP FOR R
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 29752 OF 2024 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SREE CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY LORRY SERVICE A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER B P MAHESH SON OF LATE B M PUTTAGANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS AND R/A 810, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 13TH CROSS, A SECTOR, YELEHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560064. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHNAKAR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 BENGALURU – 560052 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION, BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560001. 4. THE COMMITTEE FOR TENDER EVALUATION FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION, BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 5. K S VISHWANATH
Legal Reasoning
SRI VINAYAKA TRANSPORT, 12/1, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS, RAMASWAMY LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560030. 6. H G SIDDARAMESH, NO. 129/G2, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560085. (BY SRI.SESHU V. HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NAGARAJA N NAIDU., ADVOCATE FOR R6 R5 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 18.10.2024 PASSED BY THE R-4 COMMITTEE (ONLY IN RESPECT OF BENGALURU NORTH TALUK AND BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK) (ANNX-M) AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT FROM FINALISING TENDER NOTIFICATIONS FAS/E-PROC/RETAIL TENDER/01/2024-26 (ANNX-E) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. BEARING NO. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who was tendered his bid in response to a notification at Annexure-E dated 13.08.2024 is before this Court aggrieved of the rejection of the technical bid at the hands of the 4th respondent - Committee. This Court by an interim order dated 06.11.2024 permitted the 4th respondent to open the financial bid of the petitioner,
Decision
subject to outcome of the writ petition, while directing the 4th respondent shall not finalise the tender process. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent - Committee found that the petitioner has tendered a certificate of the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, which would not been in compliance of clause (iv) of paragraph No.5 of part II of the tender document. The said condition requires the bidder to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 submit a certificate from the respective Deputy Commissioner of the district across the State where the tenderor has done the business for previous three years. Learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Annexure-F1, which is the application given by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District seeking such a certificate to enable the petitioner to participate in the tender process for the year 2024 to 2026. However, it is pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the application filed by the petitioner to the Deputy Director and Deputy Director has issued the certificate at Annexure-G1, wherein the reference clearly is in respect of the application dated 24.08.2024, which was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 27.08.2024, filed at the hands of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel submits that for no fault of the petitioner, should the petitioner be penalized for a certificate having been issued by the Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 although petitioner filed application before the concerned Deputy Commissioner. 3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri V.Lakshminarayana, appearing for the contesting respondent Nos.5 and 6 would point out to the order passed by the 4th respondent - Committee, which has been produced at Annexure-R1 along with the application in I.A.No.2/2024, to vacate the interim order passed by this Court. It is pointed out that the 4th respondent - Committee also found that the petitioner is a partner of M/s.Aishwarya Rice Industries, which is a holder of the licence at the hands of the APMC. While pointing out to clause (v) of the paragraph No.5 of the tender notification, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the said condition would bar any bidder or their family members who are traders/licence holders of APMC food grains and any person who has a rice/wheat floor mill. In this regard, attention of this court is once again drawn to the decision taken by the 4th respondent - Committee on the basis of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 the objections raised at the hands of the contesting respondents herein that the petitioner is a partner in M/s. Aishwarya Rice Industries, which is a licence holder of APMC. However, this Court finds that no decision in that regard has been taken by the Committee. 4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No.5 and 6; the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the rejection of the technical bid on the ground that certificate has not issued by the Deputy Commissioner, but it is issued by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, is something that would penalize the petitioner for no fault of his. It is relevant to notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.N. JOSHI & SONS LTD., /vs./NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS - (2006) 11 SCC 548, where in paragraph No.66, it was held that the Apex Court is not shutting his eyes towards - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 the new principles of judicial review which are being developed. However, having regard to the development of judicial review in the field of public tender, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles which have been summarized in paragraph No.66. Most importantly what is noticeable is that the Apex Court has held that in a tender notification there may the essential conditions and same must be adhered to. On the other hand, there may be certain conditions which may not be so essential for consideration of the tender bids. Therefore, it was held that if there is no power of general relaxation, ordinarily the same shall not be exercised and the principle of strict compliance would be applied where it is possible for all the parties to comply with all such conditions fully. If, however, a deviation is made in relation to all the parties in regard to any of such conditions, ordinarily again a power of relaxation may be held to be existing. It was also held that when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with. Having regard to the such broad guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court find that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that he had not furnished the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, but he had furnished certificate issued by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, is unreasonable and too harsh a decision. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, material is placed before this Court along with this petition to show that the application is filed before the concerned Deputy Commissioner seeking issuance of certificate. However, the Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the same to the Deputy Director and consequently the certificate was issued by the Deputy Director and not the Deputy Commissioner. No fault can be found with the petitioner for a certificate being issued by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 5. However, this Court also finds that the 4th respondent - Committee has not fully considered the objection raised by the other bidders including the respondents No.4 and 5 insofar as the petitioner being a licence holder of the APMC and that he is the owner of rice mill. This aspect of the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 4th respondent - Committee. 6. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that this Court prevented the authorities from finalizing the tender process by issuing interim direction, the respondent authorities should be permitted to proceed to consider the bids offered by all the parties. It is noticeable that these are tender process for transportation of food grains and provisions, which are essential commodities and therefore the process cannot be withheld for a long time. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 - Committee for Tender Evaluation to take a decision as regards the objections raised by respondents No.5 and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3211 WP No. 29752 of 2024 6 that the petitioner is a partner in M/s. Aishwarya Rice Industries, which is said to be a licence holder of the APMC and that it has a rice mill. If upon verification it is found that the petitioner indeed is a partner of M/s.Aishwarya Rice Industries and his being partner in the said industry would in any way disqualify the petitioner, more particularly having regard to condition No.5 in paragraph No.5, of part II of the Tender Notification, the 4th respondent shall proceed to pass appropriate orders and proceed to finalise the tender. 8. Needless to observe that the petitioner may also be given opportunity to place materials to show that he does not incur any disqualification as sought to be contended by the contesting respondents. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL