Karnataka High Court
M L Karthik vs The Director Marketing on 31 May, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
4 --- fo - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 315T DAY OF MAY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S. PATT -- W.P.Nos.6455-56/2011 (APMC) os BETWEEN: Sri M.L. Karthik, S/o M.Lakshmishekar, Aged about 35 years, R/o 151, 22¢ Main Road, 34 Cross, Siddalingeshwara' Layout, oN J.P.Nagara, Mysore. oo 'PETITIONER (By Sri V.Srinivas, Adv.) AND: 1. The Director: Marketing, ° Karnataka Krushi Abhivit idhi Mandali, No. 16,: ane Rajbhas vari Read, 2. The Administrator APMC, - Mysore. a 0 The Secretary, APMC, Mysore. 4. The Presiden t : APMC, Baindipalya, Mysore." ... RESPONDENTS
"(By Sri D. Vijayakumar, AGA for RI,
- Sri H.%,Thimme Gowda, Adv. for R3, oo R2 &.R4 ~ served & unrepresented) Bee
--~ po These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the tender notice dated 31.1.2011 called by the respondent No.2 & 3 in Mysore Mithra Kannada Daily Morning News Paper vide 3329/2010-11 vide Annexure-M and etc. ma These writ petitions coming on for orders *his day, the 7 Court made the following:- oo -
ORDER |.
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to".
take notice for respondent No.1. Pn view of the nature of the dispute raised and the urgency pleaded by the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. In these writ petitions petitioner is calling in question the Tender Notification dated 31.01.2011 published by respondents 2&3 in the Kannada daily tewspaper 'Mysore Mitra' calling for fresh tender for the second eime for running a Weigh Bridge in the APMC. Yard ai- Bandipalya, Mysore.
3, . _ The case of 'the petitioner is that on an earlier occasion in respect of the 'Sante Weigh Bridge, tender notification was issued | on 20.10.2010 and the highest bidder offered %.50,999/- and
- the petitioner was the second highest bidder offering a sum of eA1517/ -. However, the highest bidder did not come forward 1o pay the balance amount and enter into agreement. Hence, as _ "fy Le
- 3 -
per Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 14 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (for short, hereinafter referred, ta as 'the Rules'), the petitioner was called upon by issuing-a' notice.
rate of ¥.41,517/- so that the APMC can. allot the Weigh' Bridge on leave and license basis. Petitioner was also cailed upcn the © to express his willingness within 'three days from the date of receipt of the said notice/intimation.
4. Pursuant to the said notice/ intimation, petitioner expressed his willingness and. also. submitted a cheque dated 04.12.2010 for a sum of Ps.2,93.366/-. Petitioner has been issued with a ceceipt for the said amount on 29.01.2011 which is produced at Annéxute-E, However. the APMC has now called upon the petitioner to pay the amount at the rate at which the . highest bid was-made and not at the rate of the second highest bid, which the petitioner had made. A notice in this regard came to be issued on 19.01.2011 vide Annexure-K calling upon ee "the petitioner to express his willingness in this regard and if so, ~address'a letter of consent, whereupon action will be taken for entering into an agreement. Aggrieved by this action of the oe, respondent-APMC, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
« i .. rcrrt--
i Hoe i
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The only question that 'arises for consideration in this writ petition is 'whether the petitioner is right and justified in contending that the sateen for 7 the rate of the second bid offered by the petitioner and" not at. the rate at which the highest bid was offered | by. the "person who opted out'.
6. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule. 4a 1S. relevant. 'for' the purpose of answering this question. 'Rule 14 deals with : allotment of Weigh Bridges, etc. cn n leave a atid lice ense basis through tender/auction. Sub-Rule 6) of Rule MW reads as under:
"The highest bidder shall remit twenty-five percent. of the bid 'amount quoted by him after deducting the. earnest money already deposited i within: three days from the date of auction failing | : which. the EMD shall be forfeited and the second " highest bidder will be given a chance for payment of such amount. In case, the second highest bidder also fails to: pay the amount the market committee shall held re-auction."
_ 5 -
7. The expression 'such amount' used in Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 14 is referable to the amount which is mentioned in the first part of Sub-Rule (5). In the first part, the amount offered by the highest bidder is referred to as 25% of "the amount already deposited within three days from 'the. date -of othe auction. In case, the highest -bidder, fails ts" deposit such' amount, his earnest money deposit will be forfeited and the second highest bidder will be given chaneé-for payment of such amount. Therefore, the expression 'sudh aziouint' used in Sub- Rule (5) of Rule' 14. is in the context of giving an option to the second highest bidder andthe amount to which the reference is made atthe éariy pat of | the section is the highest bid amount and not tie amount of tine 'second highest bid. Therefore, the contention of 'the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted...
8: : ~ However, iti the instant case, the APMC has also _proceeded"d0 'the basis that the petitioner could be given the | > contract based on the second highest bid amount which he has ° oiferea 'and it is in this background Annexure-C letter dated 01 12.2010 has been addressed to the petitioner. Based on the 'said letter, the petitioner has paid the amount which is also ; % a va
--_) ge | font | accepted by the APMC. However, having realised the mistake committed by them, the APMC has come up with the present notice dated 19.01.2011 calling upon the petitioner to pay' the difference amount and have the lease /license executed. a
9. It cannot be said that the APMC. is estopped from resorting to such a recourse as their action is consistent with Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 14. It is needless to obe serve that the APMC has rightly initiated action. to reatiction the Weigti Bridge as it has already given option to the petitioner who is the second highest bidder. However, 'it is, - contended: at the Bar by the learned counsel for the peittioner' that the APMC has already seized the movables 'stored' by the: petitioner in the premises on account of nen-paysrient of the deficit amount and the premises is locked.
TO. if the. petitioner agrees to pay the amount and agrees to 'enter into an agreement in this regard by paying the amount . calculated at the tate the highest bid was made, the APMC shall take immiediate action to give possession of the premises to the . petitioner along with movables, if any that are allegedly seized. on 'Petitioner is at liberty to make a representation in this regard within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, ener MV OP av ~ 7 -
whereupon the APMC shall take action within a week thereafter. If the petitioner is not willing to pay the amount and take the Weigh Bridge on leave/license basis, then the respondent-APMC will be at liberty to reauction the Weigh Bridge. In that event - the APMC shall refund the amount deposited by the petitioner so and give him the movables and other valuables allegediy seiued from the premises. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Saf
-. JUDGE ae) ca of