Karnataka High Court
Sri. Prakash S. R. vs The Secretary on 6 April, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.33395/2016 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.37681/2016 (APMC)
W.P.No.33395/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI PRAKASH S R
S/O S RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: SOLE PROPRIETOR
HAMSA FUELS, SH-76
HPCL DEALERS, AT POST BADA
DT. DAVANAGERE-577514
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
THE SECRETARY
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE
CHITRADURGA-577601
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R B SATHYANARAYAN SINGH, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
-2-
QUASH THE LETTER DATED 16.05.2016 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT FOR CANCELLATION OF TENDER
NOTIFICATION DATED 04.04.2016 AT ANNEX-E AND ETC.
W.P.No.37681/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. G B SHEKARAPPA
S/O LATE SRI BASAVANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O KAMADHENU MOTORS
VIDYANAGARA
MEDEHALLI ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577 502
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G B NANDISHGOWDA, ADV. FOR
SRI. R B SADASHIVAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR
DR. B R AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKET
COMMITTEE (APMC)
CHITRADURGA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY-577502
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, HCGP.)
....
-3-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED DECISION TAKEN BY THE R2 IN
ITS MEETING HELD ON 29.04.2016 CANCELLING THE
TENDER CUM OPEN AUCTION SALE DATED 04.04.2016
VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ORDER FOR REFUND TO THE
EMD AMOUNT AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in W.P. No.33395/2016 is assailing the communication dated 16.05.2016 where under the tender notification dated 04.04.2016 is cancelled.
The petitioner in W.P. No.37681/2016 is assailing the proceedings of the meeting dated 29.04.2016 deciding to cancel the Tender-cum-open auctions dated 04.04.2016.
2. Since in both these petitions, the very same action of the respondents in deciding to cancel the earlier tender process and re-tender the site for location of the petroleum outlet is to be considered, the petitions -4- are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The respondents had invited the tenders for allotment of plot for location of the petroleum outlet through the tender notification dated 04.04.2016. The petitioners in these petitions were among the six applicants, who are respondents to the said notification. The petitioner in W.P. No.37681/2016 and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited were meeting all the requirements including the licence/authorization issued by a Petroleum Corporation. According to the petitioner in W.P. No.37681/2016, even the petitioner in W.P.No.33395/2016 did not possess such license. In that circumstances it is contended that only two applicants were remaining, who were required to be considered. When this was the position since the 2nd respondent through their meeting dated 29.04.2016 took a decision to cancel the tender process and redo -5- the same afresh and a communication in that regard was also issued, the petitioners are before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by such action.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the action of the respondents is not justified inasmuch as the reason as assigned that there were not enough applicants who had responded to the tender notification is not justified inasmuch as the conditions do not stipulate that any minimum number of applications should be received in response to the tender notification. It is further contended that the reason assigned is not justified and therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained.
5. The respondents have filed their objection statement to sustain their action. What is sought to be contended is that in respect of the site which is available for locating the petroleum outlet, the best available price is to be secured and in the present -6- process though initially there were six applicants, ultimately since only two of them possessed the license, there would be no competition among the two so as to get the best price and therefore, the said action has been taken.
6. In any event the said two applicants including the petitioner in W.P. No.33395/2016 would not be denied of an opportunity, if a fresh tender notification is issued since they would have the opportunity of responding to the same and if there are any other applicants in response, they would compete with them to secure the lease to be granted in their favour for the best price which will be in public interest. Further no right had been created in favour of any of the applicants by completing the tender process and it has been cancelled at the earliest stage even before knowing the price that was to be quoted by the applicants, who are in the field. That apart the condition in the tender -7- notification provides for such cancellation before finalizing and therefore, the action cannot be faulted.
If at all the respondents re-tender, the petitioners would have the opportunity to participate in the said auction. Hence, I see no reason to interfere in the action taken by the respondents.
Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS/bms