Karnataka High Court
Shri A Mohan Babu vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.S Patil
'E
EN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATEE» THIS THE) 14TH DAY OF' JULY, 20 10
PRESENT
THE H<:)N'B:.E MR.JUST'ICE E.I..MANEEI§Ai'E{f E
AND E
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B,zS_1.PA.TIL'--.
wan' APPEAL No.1 14 11/ 2oc3:Gm4rEE:.E E
BETWEEN:
1 SEE: A MORAN BAELI -.3/<3; SR--1"BP§ASKARA RAG
AGED ABQUT 48 YEARS; 'OCQ; EE'EN.<3E§IEER
AND CONTRACTOR-»._j:'» * V
R/O1/i°:,«01EL?3M0L; -
RAMNATH Cg{::L:;1NY,' ;SAC}4---..TOS'EE"}5;f€EAL(VP)
E E ~ .. APPELLANT
SALCEi?'F'E;:,""(}C)}'x-. > .
(By SriVVf'.S}5\MPA;I'fif '%EA1%ét*r ; Ezmv. )
AND :
- _1 ":UNI:(3N o1?"I'EE1E IS REPRESENTED BY
A _ % THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OF'F'ICER(CONST.)
j ~vscEm*EEvwEsTERN RAILWAY
18; 1v.;.::EERs ROAID, BAN(.':ALORE~--560 046
2 '""--'i'I-IE'CE;I'IEF ENG:NEER(CONs'I')
:3, 'EILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560046
:DEPU"£"Y CHIEF ENGINEER (CONST)
E 'SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
MYSORE
E' 4 M /S BALAJI BUILDERS, REP BY ITS PARTNER
NCL7, 8TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
BSK 3RD PHASE, DENA BANK LAYOUT
BANGA}L.ORE~--56(} O85
. .. RESEDONDENTS
(By Sri NDEVDASS, SR. COUNSEL APPEARS FOR
Smt : K S ANASUYA DEV/'32 FOR Rb-3;
SR}.N.SUDHAKAR, ADV. FOR R4 )
THIS wen' APPEAL FELED {US 4
KARNATAKA I~iiGH cover ACT PRAY"£NG_.§__TO._'VS_E'"iTV _
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRff'~«._f'E'_i§1fFiOi'i._4'i
NO.9103/08 DATED O7/07/2008.
THIS APFEAL COMENG 01$; Fee 5 oE?.1f)§::'~2s"'*1*e1L1IE.%;7
DAY, PATIL J, DELIVERED FOIiL'OWINTCi:A * '
JUDGMe§§j_'
Challenge in this -the order dt.7*h
July 2068 pasee(1.__by the Judge. The
appe1}a3;'t"ntretSj5 Writ Pefition. The
Writ Petieogl wa}s1i§ifi1§ed..§:i:».é.21¢:ngng the acticn of the 2nd
Respo;'1det1t~«.it2"avi7;1rtii.t1g..'-contract to the 431 Respondent
" ' _vide_j ;.:~o::i;1111;1nicefiovri----d't. 3.8.6 . 2008. . of the petitioner in the Writ Petition V . wa§'~tha.t isifice he was doing Railway Contract work for V' " V.1ae:..A_severa1 years, he had acquired requisite experience
-i was eiigible for participating in the tenders called " "for. The 15% Respondent called for open tenders for various works through tender notice dt.1.4.2008. The W()I'k for which the petitioner was concemefi pertains to it the Mysore--Chamareg'anagar gauge conversion with extension to Mettupelyam and laying of crossing under line block at Mysore, _ Nanjangud stations and also eonstriieeiofii~of»:gee(,is' -«. shed, etc.
3. it is not in dispute tfiafthe #31 ._Res§ori'd4eri§; swas V another tenderer who his t:e1'1VderV'i'o1"1:}1. it is also not in dispute thatetIie:'Writ_:llPeiifi(;ner=5 bid was the lowest. to though he had acquireti"'e'all 31;, qualifioetions V "§prescri':)ed under the his was the lowest bid, the autliori£iesV rejected his tender; He V. procedure wad adopted by calling for negofiafions and in accepting his The' Single Judge declined to interfere in the maiter holding that as per section 11 of the Tender V"*x.'Adooi11nent, which pertains to eligibility criteria for works __§'.o$ting above Rs.1O lakhs, two conditions were stipulated. First being that the tenderers should have physically completed within the qualifying period i.e. the last: three financial years including the relevant financial e year, atieast. one similar nature of work for a nainimum vaiue of 35% of the Advertised tender value. Learned Single Judge has found that the _ certificate attached to the tender _(1QC_1}.II1eIit' '4 nature of the work which was the s1j1bjectee».maftef' bf' if tender, scrutinised in the 1igh'iiV_§)_i*..$xec.--'1'1 the tender document di$e1oseq_..ff1'et the had not done the Work of facilities for Eiectm mofiveé petitioner haci not aequlfeci eregtiisiile:1 _q;;a]§ficatio3:1.. The Learned the nature of the works the discharged as was clear frp.mLeefi;i§1'_eates eeeiesed by him has found that f6"'$éé.tiSf}' the eiigibilitjf Criteria and therefofe "e§1;1+,Ifiorities were justified in rejecting his tiender-..__ dqeufiieilt on the ground that he was not " iquaiified. Aggrieved by these firzclirxgs and '"t1§c.Vre_;ieetion of the Writ Petition, the present appeal is % ii1.e.di
4. During the course of arguments, it is brought to 013.1' notice by the learned. counsel appearing for the 431 A' Respendent that the werk fee' which tender was for has been aiready compieteé and nothing ~ be done in terms of the contract §'Ve1:.V__t:é;:-..V.f1'1f€:~ Respondent.
5. The learned couiasei the appellam, though deee hot " taispecttfipf the matter, contends that of the preject under Vvhetion fer the reiief soughttw in this appeal iflegally violating the terthstt of the tender and the precetlure -tcti thflowed.
'A this court having regard to the against the authorities in the matter of 'V awafd .et'_VCoi;1trac£ to the 4th Respondent ig19r:§ng the V' V' kgloiavest hit} of the petitiorier passed an order to the effect r...
' Hwhiie the em Respondent eontraefijxgtas permitted to " eelttinue the executien of the impugned conuueet, the same wifl be subject to the condition that the bank guarantee furnished shall be with held to the extent of it of 10% of the total amount payable to"'~-the <39} Respondent. Liberty was reserved to to approach the Central Vigilance V' authorised to go into tlgieseu' an observation that the go into the allegations 'C-BC.) date of the order. The tiorrrrnission was directed to V investjggrtie and proceed in aecordanoellfrith report to this court. 3 report is submitted this report, the learned ooilhsei for submits that in the light of the f1r:{liIl~g"reeortiecl.' in the Investigation report holding " .'~r_ejectioh of the tender of the Writ Petitioner was this court may have to pass appropriate regard to the Conduct of the Respondent - .. Vsouauthorities and to comperlsate the Writ Petitioner for V"'t};ie loss sustained by hire.
7'. We have carefully perused the investigation Report placed before the Court by the Central Vigilance »%"
Commission. The report in paragragh-1 1 records a finéing as under:
"1 1. Finding:
After scrutiny of the re1ev;a;r}t""reeerdsk' Raiiways connected with the"'*eim:§v£1'[gIaéei.V 'c.o11tr§cf=.u case, it was heic! that in t-.-'eiz1d_§r d'om:za11¢ni.; Aeiigihiiity * L' critefia does not quantify gzerceiitegé of track linking items and the" defined only as 'any civil work heiigg item'. As such the action to,~'tiec€i1ateA.«.':'.S1':eEVi Babu ineiigble is
3. %jA%%¢;.éaf:£mm%e'e;.ne report that though in the repext i4:_ " ' izhe action to declare SI'i.A.MOi18¥£1"--«.VE5E.b:1,1._ e,_S '~~--1711e1g'ble was not tenable, «".$ubs,eE;ue_:jit ebsefvav'-eleiis make it clear that the Tender not wrong in rejection of the offer of S;::'i..";-'%.,"I'\é*%IAoI*1.';é1.1ii'V'e: as the quantum of 'track linking 'work' det1e;by him was of a meager value. The report I"'V.L:1;';'1"t11::eif_As"t,1ggest:s that there has to be proper guidelines ' have to be worked out and the Railways should @1350 Clearly quantify the eligibility criteria for major component of experiences ciesired for execution of work 1%' fer this Rafiway Board Officiaie were advised te"'--issue suitable guidelines.
9. Thus, what emerges frorrn the théttu V' though it can be said that the pareicipating in the tender.a'p;foeess_e1x2d hehad i-eq>;is:te- quanficaeon, the fact 1.'hat :i1*2 'me absence of clear cut guidelines Vtexpeflenee of the participant vlmiéed of the quantum. tteat by the appellant as cee1_pared~ there was room for doubt. fig';;m;figita;1ceV>_':§.eportWsuggests that there was Ilothirtg such a prececiure, as exfiaefience ivais: required to be examined. Hence, we do » I3{_}t veant. go into the further details of this aspect of = the work having been already completed, '£.t:§e..d'ispiite cannot be further examined in this appeal. V. x difecfion as sought by the appellant can be given '11:: appea} in the light of the completion of the project. H If the grievance of the appellarzt is that by adopting illegai methed the entire process of accepting the finder of the 4311 Respondent was coneiuded and the same resulted ii] serious fmancial 1033 to him, it is open for 113111 to approach . the Civil Court to estabiish his afiegafions of fraud and other illegaiities go useful purpose will be served in keepi;{ig_:: tiiisvy pending as the project; itself 7.
we decline ta interfere in_t:h_e appe;ii.~.
10. Accordirggly, subject to the 0bservafions' 'ieegde' In the fight of the disnziesrggef which is with held as haeto be released to the sd/--
'JUDGE Sd/ -
JUDGE = ~*e\k% "