Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishna Traders vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO. 48486/2018 ( GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI KRISHNA TRADERS
NO.2, SEETHAIAH BUILDING,
1ST CROSS, GAJALADINNE MAIN ROAD,
2ND STAGE, BEML LAYOUT,
KOLAR-563 101.
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI SUDHAKAR. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR -563 101.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
-2-
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS ASSOCIATION,
BENGALURU-560 001.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563 101.
7. THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE
CONSUMER FEDERATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
8. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI PRE-UNIVERSITY RESIDENTIAL
SCIENCE COLLEGE,
GAJALADINNE,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
9. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
MADANAHALLI CROSS,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
-3-
10. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
SOMAYAJALAHALLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
11. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
DEVARAYASAMUDRA,
MULABAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
12. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
KAMASAMUDRA,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
13. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
SUMATI NAGARA,
K.G.F.,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 125.
14. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
D.P. HALLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
15. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
CHIGARAPURA,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
-4-
16. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
YALUVAHALLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
17. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
RAJENAHALLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
18. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
VEMAGAL,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.
19. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
GOWNAPALLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOALR DISTRICT-563 135.
20. THE PRINCIPAL
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
M. KOTHANUR,
MULABAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
21. THE PRINCIPAL
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
VAKKALERI,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.
-5-
22. THE PRINCIPAL
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
RONURU,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
23. THE PRINCIPAL
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
LAKKURU,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
24. THE PRINCIPAL
EKALAVYA MODEL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
GANGANNAGARIPALLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
25. THE PRINCIPAL
KITTURU RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL,
MULABAGAL TOWN,
MULABAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
26. THE PRINCIPAL
KITTURU RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL,
MALUR TOWN,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
27. THE PRINCIPAL
KITTURU RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL, YALESANDRA,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
-6-
28. THE PRINCIPAL
KITTURU RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 138. ... RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI M. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R5 & R6
SRI NAGAIAH, ADV., FOR R4
R7 TO R28 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER/NOTIFICATION DATED
06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE
NO.JamNi/SaKaYi/Ko/Aahara/MoDe/ CR/1/2017-18
VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order/notification dated 06.07.2018 passed by the second respondent in case No.JamNi/SaKaYi/Ko/Aahara/MoDe/CR/1/2017- 18 as per Annexure-A. -7-
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent-State Government called for tenders inviting eligible candidates to participate in the bid held for purchase of District Level Food Items to the Boarding Schools and Hostels in the year 2015. In response to the said tender, the petitioner had quoted least price (L1). As such, he was successful in the bid and the tender was issued to the petitioner on 21.06.2016. On 22.06.2016, the second respondent has passed an order permitting the petitioner to supply food commodities to certain institutions as mentioned in the said order. On 03.08.2017, the Morarji Desai and Kittururani Chennamma Schools stopped giving the list of food commodities which are essential to their schools. Therefore, the petitioner made representation to the first respondent to take action against the said schools. Since the first respondent has not initiated any action against the said schools which were causing huge loss to the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file -8- writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.53530/2017, which is pending adjudication.
3. In the meanwhile, the second respondent, without notice to the petitioner, passed an order dated 17.01.2018 and blacklisted the petitioner, which is the subject matter in W.P. No.9056/2018 filed before this Court. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 12.06.2018 by quashing the order passed by the second respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that when this Court allowed the writ petition on 12.06.2018, reserved liberty to the second respondent to pass any order after issuing notice to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 06.07.2018 entrusted the contract of supply of food materials to the seventh respondent-The Karnataka State Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited, without inviting any fresh tender for supply of food materials. The petitioner has lost an -9- opportunity to participate in the tender process and it has affected his right to life and has also caused pecuniary loss. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri. Prakash T Hebbar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the second respondent is only to accommodate the seventh respondent for supply of food materials to the respondent schools with malafide and ulterior motive and there is a clear bar under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. He would further contend that Annexure-D is the order dated 22.06.2016 issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to supply the food materials from 22.06.2016 for a period of 12 months or till the fresh tender process is
- 10 -
completed by the authority. Admittedly, in the present case, though the term is over, the respondents have not initiated any fresh tender in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.06.2016. The petitioner should have been allowed to supply the food materials till the tender process is completed. The same has not been done by the authorities. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent by allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra Sri. M. Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 & 6, though sought to justify the impugned order, but has not disputed the fact that in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.06.2016, the operative portion clearly depicts that the petitioner has to supply the food materials for a period of 12 months or till the fresh tender process is initiated and completed.
- 11 -
7. Sri. Nagaiah, learned counsel for fourth respondent submits that it is the duty of the petitioner to ensure proper supply of food materials to the fourth respondent and other institutions in accordance with law.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the undisputed fact that the petitioner was entrusted with a contract for supply of food commodities to certain institutions in terms of the order dated 22.06.2016 i.e., as per Annexure-D and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the period of 12 months stipulated in terms of the tender process. It is undisputed fact that as per Annexure-D, the petitioner has to supply food commodities to the institutions mentioned therein for a period of 12 months or till the new tender process is completed. Admittedly, the petitioner was supplying the food commodities to the institutions mentioned in the order dated
- 12 -
22.06.2016. The second respondent, by the impugned order dated 06.07.2018, has entrusted the supply of commodities to the seventh respondent without inviting tender as contemplated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 which reads as under:
"5. Procurement other than by tender prohibited.- On and from the date of commencement of this Act no Procurement Entity shall procure goods or services except by inviting tenders for supply".
9. Admittedly, in the present case, the second respondent by impugned order dated 06.07.2018 entrusted supply of food commodities to the seventh respondent till the tender process is completed, is totally without jurisdiction and contrary to the order passed by the very Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-D dated 22.06.2016 and contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Transparency
- 13 -
in Public Procurements Act, 1999. On that ground alone the impugned order cannot be sustained.
10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 06.07.2018 is hereby quashed.
11. The petitioner is entitled to supply food commodities to the institutions mentioned in the order dated 22.06.2016 till the second respondent initiates new tender process and completes in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE PYR