Karnataka High Court
Patil Computers And Services vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2024
-1- W.P.NO.100735/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.100735 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN
PATIL COMPUTERS AND SERVICES,
RPTD. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI RAOSAHEB S. PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SHOP NO.5,
RAMANATH KRUPA COMPLEX,
OPP. VANITA VIDYALAYA COLLEGE ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001,
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RPTD. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. VISHVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
RPTD. BY ITS HON'BLE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
"JNANA SANGRAMA", BELAGAVI-590001,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. VISHVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
RPTD. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
"JNANA SANGRAMA", BELAGAVI-590001,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
-2- W.P.NO.100735/2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
ORDER DTD. 12/1/2024 BRG NO.REF.VTU/BGM/SAP/CW1/30/1-
640/2023-24/5585 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE
THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER TILL THE
COMPLETION OF TIME LIMIT OF TENDER AS PER NOTIFICATION OF
AWARD NO.VTU/BGM/SAP/CW1/30/T-640/2023-24/4487, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 10.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in terminating the contract by applying clause 26.1 of General Conditions of Contract incorporated in the tender document. The said order is under challenge.
2. The factual matrix leading to the case are as under; The petitioner is a registered firm carrying sales and services of computer laptops in the name and style of "Patil Computers and Services". Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have floated tender inviting bids for supply of laptops to SC-ST students of respondent No.2/University. The petitioner having satisfied all the terms and conditions of the tender, submitted its bid through OnLine. The petitioner was declared as a successful -3- W.P.NO.100735/2024 bidder. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued letter of acceptance and petitioner obtained purchased order from the appropriate supplier and obtained HP 245 G9 Laptops and 316 HP Carry Bag. Respondent No.2 sent a communication to respondent No.3 to terminate the contract. Based on communication sent by respondent No.2, the 3rd respondent/Registrar, as per orders of Hon'ble Vice Chancellor, purchase order is cancelled on the premises that students have complained that the laptops, which were intended to supply to the students, may not survive for 8 -10 years.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents.
4. On perusal of the materials, this Court is of the view that respondent Nos.2 and 3 based on frivolous complaint complained that the VTU is supplying low configuration Laptops to the students, has unilaterally cancelled the contract. The impugned termination of contract does not substantiate valid grounds to cancel the contract. The petitioner was declared as a successful bidder and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have awarded contract. The petitioner has made investment and has already placed the purchase order. The impugned order under -4- W.P.NO.100735/2024 challenge, does not assign any reasons for cancelling the contract. The petitioner's bid was accepted and the contract was awarded in his favour. As a consequence, agreement was signed between the parties. In such a scenario, based on frivolous complaints, cancellation of contract, when petitioner proceeded with investments, cannot have any justification.
5. It is trite law that authorities must have valid reasons for cancelling the contract. Discharging tender without assigning any reasons is not sustainable in law. Except vague allegations in the complaint, nothing is substantiated by the respondents even in the documents produced along with statement of objections. Once contract is concluded, there cannot be unilateral cancellation of a tender. There is absolutely no breach on the petitioner's side and the conclusion arrived at by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in cancelling the contract are also not reflected in the impugned order. The unilateral cancellation of contract seriously prejudices the petitioner's right. Post acceptance of petitioner's bid, petitioner has bona- fidely made investment. Therefore, this is a fit case where the Court is compelled to review the decision of authorities in unilaterally cancelling the contract. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
-5- W.P.NO.100735/2024
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM/-