Karnataka High Court
Virgo Softech Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49738
WP No. 24611 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 24611 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
VIRGO SOFTECH LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANY ACT 1956
OFFICE AT NO. A-24/5
MOHAN CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 044
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR MISBAH AHAMAD SIDDIQUI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRIYANKA J SREEDHARA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
NO.125 1ST FLOOR 3RD GATE
Digitally signed M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001
by R KARNATAKA.
HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH 2. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY
COURT OF REP BY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA
I FLOOR A BLOCK TTMC BUILDING
K H ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 027
KARNATAKA INDIA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH K S., PRL. GENERAL ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE REFERRED RFP BEARING
NO. TD/2024-25/SE0058 DATED 18/07/2024, ISSUED FOR SELECTION OF
CONCESSIONAIRE FOR NEW SMART CARD PROJECT (DL AND RC) TO
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA VIDE ANNX-C.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49738
WP No. 24611 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The second respondent issued a tender document inviting a request for proposals for the selection of a Concessionaire/Service Provider for the New Smart Card Project (DL & RC) for the Transport Department, Karnataka.
2. The petitioner challenges the conditions in the tender document, particularly those pertaining to Form No.2 and Form No.3 annexed to the tender document. Clause 6 of the tender document stipulates that the assets proposed must be from one of the top five companies as per the latest IDC/Gartner report or any other reputable report.
3. Clause 14 of the tender document specifies that the successful tenderer will be responsible for providing services and supplying the following goods and consumables:
• Desktop Computer
• All-in-one Computer
• Laser Printer
• Web Camera
• Signature Pad with Pen
• Smart Card Reader
• UPS
• Generator
• Smart Card
• Smart Card Printer
• (Software Applications as specified).
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:49738
WP No. 24611 of 2024
4. Clause 4(A) of the tender document requires the tenderer to furnish an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Authorization Form as specified in Form No.3 of the corrigendum to the tender document.
Corrigendum/Addendum Project: Selection of Concessionaire for New Smart Card Project (DL & RC) to Transport Department, Karnataka.
Tender No: TD/2024-25/SE0058 Dated 18-07-2024 Corrigendum/Addendum No.3 Date: 23-08-2024 __________________________________________________________ Annexure-2 Modified Form 3 of Appendix-C: Technical Capacity of the Tenderer Form 3-Original Equipment Manufacturers' Authorization Form (To be uploaded in the letter head of the Tenderer) To The Commissioner for Transport & Road Safety 1st Floor, 'A' Block, T.T.M.C., Building, B.M.T.C. Complex, K.H. Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru-560027, Karnataka Telephone No: 080-22276433 e-mail: [email protected] Subject: Tender Reference No: [_________] Dated: [________] We [_________________] who are established and reputable manufacturers of ____________ (name and description of all goods offered) having factories at [_________] (address of factory) do hereby authorize M/s [__________] to submit a Tender, and sign the Contract with you for the foods manufactured/to be manufactured by us against this Tender. The Agents/Authorised dealers registration number with us is [_______] dated/since [_________].
-4-NC: 2024:KHC:49738 WP No. 24611 of 2024
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the conditions imposed in the tender, particularly those requiring authorization from the manufacturer (Form No.3), can only be satisfied by manufacturers, not by dealers or suppliers. Therefore, the conditions appear to favor a particular entity, rendering them arbitrary and discriminatory. Consequently, the petitioner contends that the tender notification is legally unsustainable.
6. In response, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State argued that these conditions were incorporated to ensure the best quality products and supply, as well as to address security concerns. The requirement to furnish authorization in Form No.3 ensures that successful bidders can depend on manufacturers for guarantees and warranties. Further, the petitioner lacks locus standi to challenge the tender as they fail to meet the eligibility criteria, specifically the requirement of an average annual turnover of Rs.100crore for the preceding three years.
7. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the following observations are made:
• The second respondent filed an affidavit stating that Clause 6 of the tender document is based on IDC and Gartner reports, which are reputable international technology and consulting firms. These reports rank manufacturers based on the quality and reliability of their products, ensuring minimal malfunction during the warranty period.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:49738 WP No. 24611 of 2024 • The requirement for OEM authorization ensures that tenderers, once declared successful, have guaranteed access to reliable products and full warranties from manufacturers.
• The petitioner's contention that the tender conditions favor a specific entity is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria, including the requisite turnover of Rs.100crore, and thus lacks the standing to maintain this writ petition.
8. When the clauses in a tender document are stipulated to ensure fairness, transparency, and the achievement of legitimate objectives, they cannot be deemed arbitrary or discriminatory under the law.
9. In conclusion, no illegality is found in the impugned order passed by the tender inviting authority (Respondent No.2) pursuant to the Request for Proposal bearing No. TD/2024- 25/SE0058 dated 18.07.2024.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR