Karnataka High Court
M/S Manu Creations vs Military Engineering Services on 4 September, 2023
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S MANU CREATIONS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
57/2414 (OLD 28/1820), 5TH CROSS,
AMALA NAGAR, AMALABHAVAN ROAD,
KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI,
KERALA- 682 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR. SOLOMON THOMAS
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHIVANI SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARADA AND:
VANI B
Location: 1. MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES
HIGH COURT
OF REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER (AF)
KARNATAKA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2, DC AREA,
MES ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560 022.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER
SOUTHERN COMMAND HQ MES
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA- 411 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMAR M N.,CGSC FOR C/R1 & 2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2023 PASSED IN WP
No-21050/2022 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HONBLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the order dated 05.04.2023 whereby Appellant's W.P.No.21050/2022 (GM-TEN) came to be rejected. In the said Writ Petition, the Appellant had called in question four Notices dated 30.08.2022, 03.09.2022, 30.09.2022 & 14.10.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent - Military Engineering Services rescinding the tender work allotted to it on the ground of non-compliance despite grant of sufficient time & opportunity.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that his client had several days at his disposal to procure necessary documents/drawings from the concerned entities since extension was sought for beyond the initially stipulated 45 -3- NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB WA No. 648 of 2023 days; in any circumstance, the Blacklisting of his client that was specifically challenged could not have gone unexamined at the hands of the learned Judge.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the answering Respondents resists the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. He hastens to add that there is no order whereby the Appellant has been Blacklisted except that some observations have been made in the Letter dated 30.08.2022 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-R18 to the Statement of Objections, more particularly para 4 thereof. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and we have perused the Appeal papers. We decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the finding of the learned Single Judge, at para 8 of the impugned order specifically states that not only Appellant had produced the drawings within the tender stipulated -4- NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB WA No. 648 of 2023 period of 45 days but the position remained the same even after the ad interim order dated 05.11.2022 whereby Appellant was given time to produce the same. Further, the Appellant had undertaken to produce the same "...if a day's time is granted..." this was on 29.11.2022 and therefore, the interim order granted earlier was continued. As a consequence, the learned Judge recorded a finding about non-production of the drawings even as on 21.03.2023. We do not see any reason to falter the said findings that have been recorded after considering the entire material on record.
5. Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents is right in contending that this is only an intra-court Appeal and therefore, being the continuation of the writ proceedings, it has the usual constraints of the Writ Court. After all, what the Writ Court does is not the job an Appellate Authority but, it does a limited judicial review of the decision making process whereby the tender work sought to be allotted to the Appellant, has been cancelled -5- NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB WA No. 648 of 2023 for non-submission of the drawings within the stipulated period.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that the Respondents are not justified in stigmatizing his client and thereby Blacklisting him, more particularly when the amount demanded by way of EMD has been paid, after the dismissal of the Writ Petition. This apprehension the Appellant need not have in view of the clarification made by learned CGC appearing for the Respondents that the Letter dated 30.08.2022 was intended to coerce the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,18,000/- only in terms of para 13 of the Tender Document and not for Blacklisting him. In support of this, he justifiably banks upon paragraph 4 of the said Letter which reads as under:
"Please also note that your firm is deemed suspended for quoting of tender in any MES formation till the aforesaid amount is deposited in Government Treasury. In addition, your firm is barred from participating in the subject tender in terms of Para 13 on Sl Page No.197 of tender documents. Hence you are advised not to quote for the subject tender."-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB WA No. 648 of 2023 The above text shows that the bar is the subject Tender specific and does not extend to other tenders wherein Appellant can participate subject to compliances. This becomes clear by the sentence "... your firm is barred from participating in the subject tender... Hence you are advised not to quote for the subject tender".
In view of the above, this Writ Appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv, Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29