Karnataka High Court
Mahalakshmi Engineering Works vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company ... on 9 November, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.17266 of 2022 (GM - TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHALAKSHMI ENGINEERING WORKS
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI NAGARAJU
S/O SANNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT BHERYA
HASSAN MYSORE ROAD
K.R.NAGAR TALUK
MYSURU - 571 602.
2. SURESH KUMAR
S/O HANUMATHRAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT
KORATEGER TALUK
KOLALA HOBLI
D.NAGENAHALLI, TUMAKURU
KARNATAKA - 572 129.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NANDAKUMAR C.K., SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT KAVERI BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(ELE)
OPERATIONS-1.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE TENDER NOTIFICATIONS DTD
28.03.2022; QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATIONS BEARING
1.ENQUIRY BESCOM/CGM(OP)/DGM(OP-1/AGM(OP-3)/M-4/2021-
22/46 DTD 28.03.2022 AT TRANSFORMER REPAIR CENTER IN
RAJAJINAGAR ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.11.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question 40 tenders floated by the respondent/Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited ('BESCOM' for short).
3
2. Heard Sri Nandakumar.C.K., learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.S.Sriranga, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent.
3. Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The 1st petitioner claims to be a proprietorship concern engaged in electrical contract works which would include repair and servicing of electrical transformers and claims to have a valid licence issued by the competent authority to undertake such works.
The 2nd petitioner is an independent rate contractor engaged in the same kind of electrical works. The proprietor of the 1st petitioner/Company and the 2nd petitioner claim to belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The respondent/BESCOM issued a notice inviting tenders ('NIT' for short) for repair, reconditioning and distribution of transformers of various capacity, at Transformers Repair Centers at different Taluka Divisions coming within the jurisdiction of BESCOM. The notification was issued on 28-03-2022 notifying 54 Transformer Repair Centers. A 4 corrigendum to the said notification comes to be issued on 13-04-2022 cancelling four tenders out of 54 tenders shown as Transformer Repair Centers. Therefore, tenders came to be restricted to 50.
4. Out of 50 tenders, ten tenders were reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category claiming them to be reserved in terms of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000. The said tenders became a subject matter of Writ Petition No.8492 of 2022. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 20-06-2022 quashed the tender notification insofar as it pertained to reservation of 10 tenders, for tenderers belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, as those were the only tenders that were challenged. The BESCOM tossed the said judgment before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by its order dated 02-09-2022 dismissed the appeal in Writ Appeal No.667 of 2022 affirming the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench.
5
5. After dismissal of the writ appeal and confirmation of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench, those 10 tenders which were quashed by the co-ordinate Bench were re-tendered. The re- tender was restricted to those tenders as it was those tenders which had been the subject matter of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the tender process.
6. The subject petition comes to be filed on 26-08-2022 calling in question all the 50 tenders that are notified by BESCOM.
7. The learned senior counsel Sri.C.K.Nandakumar representing the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners were precluded from participating in the tender earlier, as they come within 10 tenders only which were reserved tenders and that having been quashed all the 50 tenders had to be re- tendered or the petitioners should be permitted to participate in all the 50 tenders. He would contend that the finding of the co- ordinate Bench would enure to the benefit of the petitioners and they be permitted to participate. He would but, admit that the 6 petitioners never participated in the tender notification issued on 28-03-2022.
8. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/BESCOM would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners who have never participated in the tender cannot point out any lacunae in the tender. A tenderer who does not participate would not get locus to even question any part of the tender. He would submit that the issue whether the petitioners and the like, have locus, is no longer res integra as the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. GWALIOR JHANSI EXPRESSWAY LIMITED1 has considered the said issue, which is subsequently followed by a co- ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.4041 of 2022 and connected cases decided on 07-03-2022. He submits that the issue stands covered and the petitioners cannot be heard on any other point. He seeks dismissal of the petition.
1 (2018) 8 SCC 243 7
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof the issues that would fall for my consideration are -
(i) Whether BESCOM was right in seeking to re-
tender only those 10 tenders that were quashed by this Court? and
(ii) Whether petitioners have any locus to question any act of BESCOM qua the tender notified, notwithstanding their non-participation in the tender process?
In the light of the second issue cutting at the root of the matter, I deem it appropriate to consider the same at the outset. Issue No.2:
(ii) Whether petitioners have any locus to question any act of BESCOM qua the tender notified, notwithstanding their non-participation in the tender process?
10. The afore-narrated facts with regard to issuance of notice inviting tender for the works notified therein are not in dispute. The petitioners though belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes 8 and reservation of 10 tenders being accorded thereto out of 50 tenders, did not participate in the tender process, are all a matter of record. The notice inviting tender did no where restrict any tenderer to participate in any tender on the NIT dated 28.03.2022. Though reservation was stipulated qua 10 tenders, the tenderers belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were not precluded from participating in the tenders of general category. As a matter of fact, there were several tenderers who did participate in both the tenders reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and in the general category. The petitioners chose to sit on the fence, did not participate in the tender process at all, neither in the 10 reserved tenders nor in the 40 unreserved tenders. Therefore, the petitioners now seek to point out lacunae in the tenders, sitting outside throughout. Whether that would be permissible is the question?
11. A tenderer who remains outside and then seeks to question the tender process or conditions stipulated in the tender notification would not get locus to challenge and condition of tender. This issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep 9 into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (supra) considering this issue, has held as follows:
"20. While considering the relief claimed by the respondent (claimant), the same should have been tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the tender process, especially when the validity of the tender document has not been put in issue or challenged before any competent forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender documents, as already alluded to in para 10 above, there is no title of doubt that the right of the claimant (respondent) to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come into play only if the respondent was to participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid (technical and financial). The fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender document that if the respondent was to participate in the bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfill all the requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP, being the existing concessionaire of the project, does not exempt the respondent from participating in the tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender process to be considered as a responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to participate in the tender process and, more so, despite the express terms in the tender documents, validity whereof has not been challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the non-fulfillment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the tender documents concerned. The respondent who chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who 10 had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender document, the respondent has no case whatsoever."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court clearly holds that the tenderer who would chose to stay away from the tender process cannot be heard to whittle down the rights of eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the tenderer had not participated in law, he cannot be seen to question the terms and conditions. The petitioners, in the case at hand, have admitted their non participation in the tender. Staying away from the tender, they cannot now seek to challenge the tender. It is further germane to notice a similar view taken by the Calcutta High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of SUBIR GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS2 has held as follows:
"4. The more important factor is that the tender process in this case opened sometime in March, 2019 and the closing date for submitting online bids was April 1, 2019. The writ petition was filed in January, 2020. Though it is submitted on behalf of the writ 2 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2213 11 petitioner that the time to submit the bids was extended, no specific date in such regard is indicated. What is apparent is that the writ petitioner did not participate in the bidding process and yet chose to challenge the same.
5. It is possible that a prospective bidder finds the terms of the tender documents to be unfair or illegal and challenges the same; but such challenge has to be before the time to put in the bids is closed. At any rate, if a bid is made and the bid is thrown out on an illegal or unfair ground contained in the tender documents, even then, a challenge can be fashioned. But a person who has not participated in the bidding process at all cannot challenge the tender conditions on any ground whatsoever. This admitted aspect of the matter escaped the attention of the Single Bench while passing the impugned order of January 15, 2020.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated January 15, 2020 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Since the best arguable case of the writ petitioner will not result in any of the tender terms being altered as the writ petitioner did not participate in the process at all, the writ petition itself is dismissed. Nothing in this order will be construed to be an approval of the terms and conditions of the tender document and in an appropriate challenge, the same may be considered in accordance with law."
In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of SUBIR GHOSH holding that only a participant can question the tender, the challenge raised by the petitioners who are not the participants in the subject tender, would thus tumble down. Therefore, the second issue that fell for consideration which concerns locus of the 12 petitioners to challenge the tender process being held against the petitioners, the first issue with regard to tender process would not arise for consideration, as it is trite law, that if a writ petitioner has no locus to raise a challenge to the subject matter, no other ground on merit of the challenge need be considered.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, finding that the petitioners have no locus to maintain the petition, the petition is dismissed as unentertainable.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ