Karnataka High Court
The Kalyan Karnataka Koppal District vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386
WP No. 105160 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105160 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. THE KALYAN KARNATAKA KOPPAL DISTRICT,
CIVIL CONTRACTORS UNION (R) (SC/ST),
DIST OFFICE KOPPAL-583231,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL PRESIDENT,
SHRI. SIDDU K. MANNINAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS,
R/O. BEVOOR VILLAGE, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
2. THE KALYAN KARNATAKA KOPPAL DISTRICT,
CIVIL CONTRACTORS UNION (R) (SC-ST),
DIST OFFICE KOPPAL-583231,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT PRESIDENT,
SHRI YANKAPPA HOSALLI, AGE: 36 YEARS,
R/O. HOSALLI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
KALMATH
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001,
Location: HIGH BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
PWD OFFICE, BALLARI CIRCLE,
BALLARI -583101.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION KOPPAL,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386
WP No. 105160 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A. WRIT IN THE NATURE OR CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED
TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KW-23&4 TEND:2024-
25:/1343 DATED 08.08.2024 IN RESPECT OF YELBURGA
TALUK BEARING SERIAL NO.19. PWD/2024-25/RD/WORK-
INDENT12090 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED
21/08/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER VIDE ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondents-State.
2. Petitioners are the Unions of Koppal District Contractors. They are aggrieved by the tender notification dated 08.08.2024, floated by the respondents. A tender notification came to be floated by respondent No.3 for maintenance of State Highways and District Main Roads. In the said tender notification, Government had fixed -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 105160 of 2024 Rs.3.69 lakhs in respect of Yelburga taluk and it is the grievance of the petitioners that the same was not reserved for any works to the SC/ST category in contrary to the provisions of Section 27(A) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The petitioners-Union filed objections, requested reservation of 24.1% works to the SC/ST category. Petitioners also relied on the Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 10.10.2023, whereby reservation of 24.10% works to the SC/ST contractors are required to be reserved for the work contract up to Rs.50 lakhs, which came to be extended to Rs.1 crore. In spite of the said Circular being issued, where the reservation is to be provided for SC/ST to an extent of work contract up to Rs.1 crore, no reservation was provided in the tender, floated by the respondents for Yelburga Taluk Constituency.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the tender notification is against the provisions of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, violative of Article 14 of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 105160 of 2024 Constitution of India. It deprives the fundamental right and it is against the Circular floated by the Government dated 10.10.2023, wherein reservation is required to be provided to an extent of 24.10% and in the Yelburga taluk, the work contract was for Rs.3.69 lakhs and there is no reservation provided. Therefore, it is the vehement contention by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, there is clear discrimination against the citizens on the basis of the caste and non-providing of the reservation is violation of the Circular and the intent of the tender notification. Under the circumstances, he seeks to quash the impugned tender notification, floated by the respondent No.3 and consequently to consider the representation of the petitioners for grant of reservation to participate in the tender in the respect of Yelburga taluk.
4. Learned AGA representing the State, has filed detailed statement of objection. Primarily, it is contended by the learned AGA that the entire process of tender has been completed, the work contract has been issued and 80% of the work has already been completed by the -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 105160 of 2024 successful tenderers in all the taluks. It is further contended by learned AGA that as per the tender notification, floated on 08.08.2024, 24.1% of the work contract for SC/ST category has been reserved for several Taluks. It is also contended by him that Rule 27(A) of the Rules to the amended Act of 23, notifies preferences for tenderers belonging to SC/ST in construction works and the same has been provided with regard to 17.15% to the SC category and 6.95% to the ST category tribes. Therefore, the contention that reservation was not provided in the tender notification, is frivolous as even according to the NHRA, it very clearly specifies that reservation is provided to the SC/ST categories. It is contented by learned AGA that the petitioners herein, who are Unions, have no locus to challenge the tender notification. The petitioners have not participated in the tender notification, therefore the question of allotting or considering, would not have arisen for the respondents, even otherwise.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 105160 of 2024
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the reservation was not provided to the SC/ST categories, as contemplated under Rule 27(A), but the same is not the correct fact, as per the tender notification issued. It is further contended by learned AGA that the tender Issuing Authority has the authority to issue the tender and prescribe the reservation to all the areas of the different taluks, but provide reservation as contemplated under Rule 27(A) and the Circular issued, which has been done in the present case on hand. It is for the tender inviting authorities to invoke its own terms and conditions for formulation of the tender, it cannot be a fundamental right of the petitioners to challenge this or the tender notification, at the most it could amount to a contractual obligation.
6. I am in agreement with the learned AGA that in the present case, the petitioners having not participated in the tender, cannot have any grievance with regard to allotment of tender and the successful tenderers, so also with regard to the reservation not being provided to -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 105160 of 2024 Yelburga Taluk, cannot be appreciated as no rule or provision is brought to the notice of this Court to show that the reservation request be provided to each of the Taluks at the behest and prerogative of the tender inviting authority to invoke the terms and conditions by providing reservation as a wholesome process or to respective Taluks. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by such reservation being provided to specified taluks, then they would have to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
7. Learned HCGP relies on the judgment in the case of Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others reported in AIR 2023 SC 2717 and the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Montecarlo Limited and Another reported in (2022) 6 SCC 401 and in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216. In the present case on -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 105160 of 2024 hand, it is stated that the Tender Authority has finalized the tender, the work contract has been issued to the successful tenderers and 80% of the work contract is over. So therefore, the question of interfering or showing any indulgence to the petitioners would not arise in this present case.
8. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER This petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9