Karnataka High Court
Matha Technologies vs District Health And Family on 25 August, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.966 OF 2016 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
MATHA TECHNOLOGIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI.RAMAPPA RATHOD
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
MATHRUKRUPA, PLOT NO.106
1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS
SAPTHAGIRI NAGAR
YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY
DHARWAD - 580 004 ... APPELLANT
(BY MR.A.R.VIVEK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.306, DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
CHAMARAJNAGARA 571 313 ... RESPONDENT
(BY MISS NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
---
2
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in
W.P.No.21645 of 2016 dated 13.4.2016.
This appeal coming on for Preliminary hearing this day,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated April 13, 2016, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21645 of 2016, rejecting a challenge to the tender notice dated March 22, 2016, issued by the authorities.
2. The Zilla Panchayath, Chamarajanagar, floated a tender notice for outsource agencies for the essential job posts as decided in the General Meeting dated May 21, 2013, in the Zilla Panchayath, Chamarajanagar.
3. The writ petitioner - appellant has been the successful tenderer and tender was awarded to him. In the tender notice, the duration of the tender was mentioned; it would be in force till recruitment of permanent employees in different divisions by 3 the Government or the next notice by the office. However, when the document of agreement was executed between the parties, it was mentioned that the agreement would be valid till the direct recruitments are made.
4. A new tender notice was published on March 22, 2016. The existing contractor is apprehensive. He feels that if new contractor is appointed, his contract may be terminated.
5. The question is whether the existing contractor has a vested right to continue. It takes time for appointment and, therefore, it cannot be said that an outsource agency must continue until such time.
6. Mr.A.R.Vivek, learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal, cites the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'AIR INDIA LIMITED versus COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED AND OTHERS' reported in (2000)2 Supreme Court Cases 617 and in the case of 'MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED versus STATE OF 4 KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216.
7. We have considered the decisions of the Supreme Court of India as, also, the submission of the learned advocates as addressed before us.
8. The scope of interference by a judicial review in such matters by the Court is extremely narrow and unless it is found that the public authorities acted unfairly to the concerned contractor, we should not interfere. Even assuming, for the sake of arguments, some legal points are made out, still, Courts should be slow in interfering with the action of the State if the action of the State is in furtherance of the public interest Unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and misused, interference by the Court is not warranted.
5
9. We do not find any merit in the appeal, as the authorities have decided to float a fresh tender which would be within their domain.
The writ appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed.
10. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA No.1 of 2016, does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RV