Karnataka High Court
Aishwarya vs The Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB
WA No. 200231 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200231 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
AISHWARYA W/O MANJUNATH JALGAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O DARGA JAIL, NEAR YOGASHRAM,
VIJAYAPURA - 586102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KALYANA KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION (KKRTC)
CENTRAL OFFICE,
Digitally signed
by SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
LUCYGRACE KALABURAGI - 585102.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KKRTC
KALABURAGI DIVISION NO.2,
KALABURAGI - 585102.
3. R. SHANTU W/O RAJU PANDE,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O BEHIND KKRTC BUS STAND,
INDIRA NAGAR, MANVI,
DISTRICT RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK V BARAD, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB
WA No. 200231 of 2024
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED ON DATED
09.09.2024 IN WP NO. 201752/2024; MAY BE PLEASED TO
PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION WP NO. 201752/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present appeal is by the respondent No.3 in the writ proceedings calling in question the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was allowed and the communication at Annexure-D made to the petitioner in the writ petition has been set aside and the work order was issued to responded No.3. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024
2. Learned Single Judge by the order passed set aside the communication at Annexure-D, whereby the intimation to the petitioner in the writ petition that his offer would be considered came to be revoked. The said order is in challenge in the present proceedings.
3. Parties are referred to as per by their ranks in the writ proceedings for the purpose of convenience.
4. The brief facts are that:
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had invited bids for carrying out maintenance works at the Central Bus Stand at Kalaburagi and in the process of such tender, the respondent No.3 being the highest bidder referred to as H1 was successful in the auction proceedings and the tender was awarded to respondent No.3. It is to be noticed that the date for payment of the bid amount in terms of the tender document not having been adhered to, the respondent No.2 initially made out a communication dated 04.06.2024 granting three days time to complete the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024 payment. That within the three days period, the amount was not paid, it appears that subsequently respondent No.3 had made payment on 21.06.2024, which came to be accepted and agreement was entered into with respondent No.3 on 05.07.2024 as per Annexure-R4 and work order issued subsequently on 08.07.2024.
5. In the meanwhile, it appears that when respondent No.3 did not make payment within the extended time, letter was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to participate in the tender process who was the H2 bidder.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the respondent No.2 having granted extension of time to respondent No.3 had approached the learned Single Judge assailing the revocation of communication addressed to him, whereby the petitioner was permitted to participate in the tender process.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024
7. Learned Single Judge noticing the offer made to the petitioner has found fault with the respondent No.2 in not proceeding with the petitioner, has set aside the work order as well as agreement executed in favour of Respondent No.3. Said order has been challenged by petitioner. The respondent No.2 has also placed before this Court all proceedings relevant to the decision making process.
8. It is the case made out by the appellant who was respondent No.3 that the Court ought not to have intervened in the commercial aspect of extension of time and waiving of objection regarding belated payment made beyond the time fixed under the tender process, which is solely within the discretion of the respondent No.2.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would also submit that in the absence of malafides Court ought not to have intervened in the matter and further relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others Vs AMR Dev Prabha and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024 Others reported in AIR Online 2020 SC 466 on the proposition that the extension of time and waiving of condition is essentially one between the public authority and the entity which is the successful bidder.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also stated that respondent No.2 while accepting the amount paid at delayed point of time, had followed it up by an agreement dated 05.07.2024 and work order issued on 08.07.2024. It was contended that by such action it could be construed that the delay was waived and such being the position, the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the plea of the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that there was no concluded acceptance by the petitioner of the call letter and even otherwise the offer came to be revoked by the respondent No.2.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the terms of the tender document ought -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024 to be strictly enforced and that there was no power with the authority to extend the time stipulated in the contract which was impermissible. It was further submitted that there was a legitimate expectation of the petitioner of being heard before the communication of revoking the earlier offer as at Annexure - D.
13. Heard both sides.
14. The facts as narrated above are not in dispute. It must be noticed that admittedly payment by respondent No.3 was made finally on 21.06.2024, the said aspect is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after the payment on 21.06.2024 an agreement came to be entered by respondent No.2 with respondent No.3 on 05.07.2024 and work order has been issued on 08.07.2024. Such action of accepting the amount entering into an agreement and issuance of work order would demonstrate that the delay in making of payment in terms of the tender has been waived by respondent No.2.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024
15. The invitation made to the petitioner was on 21.06.2024. It must be noticed that it was the same date on which respondent No.3 has made the entirety of payment which is not in dispute. Such aspect is adverted to by respondent No.2 in the communication at Annexure- D made to the petitioner. If that were to be so, the question of continuance of the offer to the petitioner did not arise. In fact, the revocation of a communication on 21.06.2024 has in effect attained finality as respondent No.2 has continued the process of finalizing the bid of respondent No.3 by accepting the money and entering into agreement and issuing work order.
16. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra), has observed that even where there may be minor deviation from the explicit terms of the tender in the absence of malafides, the Court not to intervene in the tender proceedings at the instance of the unsuccessful bidder.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024
17. The facts as narrated above clearly make out that the delay in making payment has been waived by respondent No.2 who had floated the tender. If that were to be so, in the absence of malafide, question of intervening by invoking writ jurisdiction does not arise.
18. Learned Single Judge has grossly erred in noticing the case put up by the petitioner by observing that there was no provision to have revoked the offer made to the petitioner. As noticed above, the offer made to the petitioner stood revoked once the respondent No.2 went ahead in executing agreement and work order in favour of Respondent No.3. Accordingly there was no occasion to have taken up the case of the petitioner ignoring the subsequent development of execution of agreement and work order by respondent No.2 with the respondent No.3.
19. Accordingly, we find no reason to concur with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner being a third party does not have any vested right to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:861-DB WA No. 200231 of 2024 intervene and invoke constitutional rights insofar as the commercial aspect of respondent No.2 condoning the delay in making of deposit and proceeding to accept the bid of H1. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: PS