Karnataka High Court
M/S B Munikrishnappa vs Government Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.51633 /2013 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S. B MUNIKRISHNAPPA
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.362
J C EXTENTION, VIJAYAPURA,
DEVAHANAHALLY TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
M RAVISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SRI B MUNIKRISHNAPPA
NO.362, J C EXTENTION
VIJAYAPURA, DEVAHANAHALLY TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VAGEESHA N, ADV.)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
STATE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PWD ANNEX BUILDING
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560001
2. PROJECT DIRECTOR
E-PROCUREMENT
CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H V MANJUNATHA, AGA. FOR R1 & 2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
TENDER NOTIFICATION DT.1.10.13, [2ND CALL] PACKAGE
NO.113, WORK INDENT NO.15182, ISSUED BY THE R1
PRODUCED AT ANN-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the short term tender notification No.03/2013-14 dated 01.10.2013 relating to package No.113, work indent No.15182 impugned at Annexure-C to the petition.
2. The petitioner claims to be a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and is a Class-I contractor. In respect of the short term tender notification bearing No.03/2013-14 dated 01.10.2013, the petitioner had responded in respect of package No.113, work indent No.15182 i.e. the work of carrying out improvement to Mandya-Hadagali State Highway-47 from kilo meter 128.84 to kilo meter 195.50. The tender documents submitted by the petitioner has been rejected for non-compliance of the requirements. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the 3 same is before this Court. The nature of rejection is for the reason that the uploading of the challan and the payment of EMD by way of Bank Guarantee had mismatched with each other and therefore the tender documents submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the requirement.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that the respondents were not justified would submit that as per the requirement, the EMD was to be paid for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and for the balance of Rs.21,00,000/-, Bank Guarantee could be furnished. The petitioner on the mistaken notion had apart from uploading the challan for Rs.1,00,000/- had also uploaded the challan for Rs.22,00,000/-. On subsequently coming to know of the fact that the same could be split by way of cash and Bank Guarantee as noticed above, the resubmission was made. It is therefore contended that when the challan for Rs.1,00,000/- had been uploaded at the first instance and subsequently, the 4 Bank Guarantee for Rs.21,00,000/- was also uploaded, the same satisfies the requirement and therefore the respondents were not justified in rejecting the same on the technical ground that the initial payment of Rs.1,00,000/- which was uploaded was not available and therefore there was a mismatch. It is therefore contended that in such circumstance, when the petitioner on coming to know of the rejection having approached the respondents on 11.11.2013 with the representation as at Annexure-F, the respondents should have considered the tender of the petitioner also for technical evaluation. It is in that circumstance contended that since the financial bid is yet to be opened, an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to take part in the tender process.
4. Learned Government Advocate on instructions from the Officers and the Para wise comments furnished to him would submit that even though there is no dispute with regard to the fact that at the first instance, the petitioner had generated a challan in the e-procurement 5 portal for Rs.1,00,000/- for payment of EMD on 04.11.2013, on the same day, he had generated the second challan for Rs.22,00,000/-. Subsequent thereto, since the petitioner had decided otherwise, the petitioner though had taken the Bank Guarantee for Rs.21,00,000/- due to the earlier process, when the second challan for Rs.22,00,000/- had been uploaded since that constitutes the entire EMD amount, the first challan for Rs.1,00,000/- would not remain valid. In such circumstance, when subsequently, the petitioner intended to pay the EMD by Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs.21,00,000/-, the requirement was that a separate challan for Rs.1,00,000/- was required to be uploaded once over again. Since, the said compliance had not been made and there being mismatch, the tender submitted by the petitioner was rejected.
5. In the light of the said contentions, the fact remains that the process as indicated by the respondents with regard to the nature of uploading of the challan as 6 made by the petitioner at the first instance and thereafter resorted to in the second instance cannot be in dispute. However, the contention of the petitioner is that when the said option was available and the petitioner was not aware that the first challan uploaded for Rs.1,00,000/- would have been deleted automatically and subsequently he was required to upload the challan for Rs.1,00,000/- once over again, no fault could be found. It is therefore contended that in a circumstance where the petitioner on coming to know of the said situation had attempted to rectify before the technical bid was opened, the petitioner should have been provided an opportunity. In the light of the same, it is no doubt true that as per Annexure-F, a communication has been addressed by the petitioner to indicate these aspects and to state that the original of the Bank Guarantee is being furnished. Even if these aspects of the matter are kept in view and if the contention of the petitioner that the situation has arisen due to confusion is taken into consideration, it is not as if the challan for Rs.1,00,000/- had been uploaded again prior to 7 08.11.2013. In such circumstance, when in the e-procurement process, the tender documents of the petitioner had been rejected and subsequently the technical bid has already been opened on 11.11.2013 and when it is brought to the notice of this Court that four other tenderers have already qualified in the technical evaluation, at this juncture, it would not be possible for this Court to direct the respondents to accept the bid of the petitioner also, since the process of evaluation of the technical bid has already been completed and the financial bid is to be opened on 22.11.2013.
Therefore, in the said circumstance, I am of the opinion that the prayer as sought in the instant petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*