Karnataka High Court
Sri N.O. Shetty vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 30 May, 1991
Equivalent citations: AIR1992KANT94, 1991(2)KARLJ588, AIR 1992 KARNATAKA 94, 1992 (1) ARBI LR 389, (1991) ILR (KANT) 2203, (1991) 2 KANT LJ 588, (1992) 1 ARBILR 389
Author: S. Mohan
Bench: S. Mohan
JUDGMENT
1. Tender Notification No. 1172/90 dated 22-8-1990 was issued by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bijapur Division, for selection of licensee to run a vegetarian Refreshment Room at Mudhol Bus Station on licence basis for a period of 3 years. The appellant was a licensee whose licence had come to an end on 21-11-1990. He also submitted his tender for Rs. 9,555/- while the 4th respondent -- Ravindra Shetty submitted his tender for Rs. 9,666/-.
2. It is beyond dispute and in fact admitted before us that the tender of the appellant was not accompanied by one important document stipulated under Clause 7 of the tender Notification No. 1172/90. That under sub-clause (c) of Clause 7 it is stated as under :--
"Security Deposit in the form of Banker's Guarantee from a scheduled Bank in Form No. IV or in the form of fixed deposit assigned in the name of the Divisional Controller, KSRTC Bijapur Division or in cash for a sum equivalent to 12 (twelve) months licence fee stated by the tenderer. The Banker's Guarantee shall be valid for a period of four years. In case the licence is extended, revised Banker's Guarantee shall be furnished for the appropriate sum, and valid for two years from the date of each extension. Non-completion of conditions at 7(a)(b) and (c) will entitle the option to reject the tenders."
Thereafter by reason of a General Standing Order No. 365/1989 dated 29-12-1989 the appellant raised his tender offer more than that the 4th respondent to Rs. 9701/-. However, notwithstanding the raising of his bid, his tender was rejected on the ground of non compliance with sub-clause (c) of Clause 7 of the tender notification No. 1172/90, which we have quoted above. In those circumstances, he preferred writ petition No. 22538/90 praying for a certiorari to quash Annexure-F dated 6-11-1990, for and by which the appellant was called upon to vacate the Refreshment Room. We may also state that this was because the period of earlier licence had come to an end on 20th Nov. 1990. It was later on, the order of rejection was passed. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition for the reasons contained in his order.
3. In this appeal before us it is urged that not every condition of the tender could be considered to be essential. Where therefore for non compliance of a non-essential condition if the tender is rejected it must be held to be arbitrary. In support of this submission reliance is placed on the ruling of the Bombay High Court reported in M/s. B.D. Yadav and N. R. Meshram, Engineers and Contractors, a Partnership Firm, Nagpur v. Administrator of the City of Nagpur, AIR 19S4 Bombay 351. It is further submitted that where the General Standing Order enables the appellant to raise his bid and accordingly he had raised the bid to Rs. 9701, the rejection of his tender would not be proper.
4. These are the only two contentions urged before us, We have given our very careful consideration to the above.
5. The purpose of our quoting clause 7(c) of the tender notification is to emphasise that it is an essential condition. In M/s. G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, it has been held that where an essential condition is not complied with, it is certainly open to the person inviting the tender to reject the same. In this particular case non compliance of clause 7(c), enables the inviter to reject the tender. That is precisely what has been done. We regard it having regard to the scope of this condition as essential one. Yadav's case relied on by learned Counsel for the appellant AIR 1984 Bom 351, relate to relaxation of the condition in relation to the earnest money deposit. That condition was relaxed not only in favour of the one but in favour of all. Earnest money deposit being one by way of fidelity, it is entirely open to the inviter to set off an essential condition like the security deposit, here. Therefore, the first of the contentions fails.
6. It is true by virtue of the General Standing Order, the appellant was allowed 15 raise his bid and accordingly he raised the bid to Rs. 9701/-. Even then the initial defect of non compliance of clause 7(c) of the tender notification would stare at one's face. Therefore, where for no compliance of an essential condition if his tender had come to be rejected, we do not think he can avail of the benefit of the General Standing Order. There are no merits in this writ appeal. Dismissed.
7. Appeal dismissed.