Easun Products Of India (P) Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2011

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Easun Products Of India (P) Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2011

Bench: B.S.Patil

gﬁu

IN THE) HIGH cozsm' 01> KARNATAKA AT BAN{:gA;L®;§E§    _

DATED THIS "mg 5% DAY OF JULY,  '

BEFORE 

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIC»E1 E_;'S';PA':}"I.L"'    

W.P.1\To.1 1796/2431 1 (GM~TEN)

W.P.No.13389-90/2'€}VA];A}. (GM-TEE} -- 

BETWEEN:

Easun Products of India (P)gLtd_. V

A company incorparated uhder 

the Companies  ;§i595f:> hé>;_v*il1g _ V
its registered 0'Iﬁc€:"--af"i'é.:np1ej--.,_   " _ 
Towers, 6"' F1001;  :'_ ' ~  «. 
Chennai ---~€:3(ZiG -.(}3j'L-5, _

Branch Officé at :   

N0568, 7U2._C:x;ss, ' '  _ 

Ramaiah No:1t_h' Cityg,  *

Tanisandra Mair} Road, A

B3.I1ga10:i"€v~_ 560 045;' "

 -V Repres'ei1ted' herein' by. 11$' .
 AV Pfojeci"Engi11eé:¢Mr. S,Karth€esaIL  PETITIONER

'V »  = v  (COMMON)

(ﬁg:  §.Vﬁj'a;_fas~ 11a_Iikar, Sr. Counsel for
2man'daran2g  Prashanth, Ash.-*3.)

'  AND: 

' ' " "The St..éaf§:':'0f Karnataka,

3 ~..De§>a:tment of Energy?
* j " E§'i'.S§Bui}ding, Vidhana Vsedi,
--  Bangalore - 560 G9},
--  Répresented by its
" ~ _ WPrinC:ipa1 Secretary.

2. Karnataka §€}1-V63' T 1"&§'iSfI1iSS§Sf:
Csrparaéien L'Ld.,



13? Floor, Kaveri Bhavari.

Barigalere ~ 560 009,

Represented by its   ._
Managing Directer. I

3. The Chief Engineer, Eileetrieity,
Tendering 8»: Procurement, ' 
Kaveri Bhavan, 'A' Block,
P.B.NO.9C}90,

Bangalore «~ 560 009. . 

4. KEI Industries Ltd., . v
D«90., Okhla Industrial  V
Phase~L New De'1hi"=-.~ 113:0 
Represeritedﬁy  _ ' 
Mariagirlg    

 '  RESPONDENTS

     ._ _ (COMMON)

(By Sri D.Vijayakumaf,1::AAdV--..'fur R~  
Sri S.%S.Nagaﬁaiz.d, Sr. Counsel for
S.Srirangar,'Advl.*;'rEirAAJ'ust'Law. 'Advs. for R-2 & 3;

Sri Jayakumar S.Pa__ti1_. Sr, 'Counsel 8: D.Ma1hothra, Adv. for
Sri V.B.S1'1ivakuni'ar,lAdv, 'rm R-4)
These writ petitionsare filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the CQ}_'§:1SJ[I§uU0HV"GfH India, praying to quash all proceedings

 prursu-ari*t  the n0tie'e"*ir1viting tender dated 03.08.2010 vicle
V. VAnri'e2;u1*efAVas the Same is arbitrary and illegal & etc.

 . *-These:"petitiori'S having been heard and reserved for erders
on {2'7s€)t5.2Gl*1;_ earning (in for 'Proriourieemerit of Order', this

 riayr the c<;;u'x: made the followirigz

ORDER

A' "fljiese writ petitieris are betweeri the same partiesl They .ii1rée--lve'Aeernrnen questieris of law and facts. H€1'iC€§ they are liearei aria disposed ef tegether by this eezrnrrien order. age"

2. Petitioner in these writ petitions ie ineerperated under the pmvisiens of the Compa::i_ee.A:§_t; t'1§56~.t b Petiti0ner-C0mpany is aggrieved by eiteeisicgn-I Tender Accepting Authority ac_r:eptih<g._ the teeh'h;'{Ca1"

respondent No.4 and the e0h's.e.E;uentiaI*- a"1.t:;tken in awarding the contract in fziveur ":*esfj'§;rfteieht No.45"

3' Facts, stated in brief; feleifargt fof-t}:.e"ease are that, the Karnataka Power Transmtsteieri:=C0rper:ttiQh"fgiﬁlited (for short, KPTCL') issued4_Vt3eh'<«iexg inviting bids for running ofihgxe from the proposed gas insulated"extrttehéggng existing sub--stati0ns at different =tu.rnkey basis including design? supply X of " ;§qu:,1§;~mén£s"/ materials and erection of all Vequipmentst testing '2i):'1":'i'V Commissioning, setting out Various gtxvalifying requirements for the prospective ' Vt btdde27_e.h Petittétzer submitted its tender and as alsorespondent 53.9.4 amehg several ethers. According to the petitiener, It ah the requiretnehts and stipulations set out in the __ "te:1ei;er hetifieatiens and the bid deeumehts. The techno» "ueevzhmereiat bids were epeheei on 2G.}2s2Cr£Q. ijetitéoner was ' fetmait te have b€€:": quaiifteé, As regards reependent Next' the ease of the petitioner is that the 'fender Se:*utin3;»;--- * had feund rnajer defect/irregularity _in...t,he :¢::d'ér--=;:a¢u::f:en«eg submitted by it. Howeverr the Board 1:::_:~e.:to1%'s_c:sr No.2 in order to faveur respendent'--~No.4 ignoredt'5i{he.:._prescribe<iﬂ' quaﬁfteations and other requirem_e_ntsV_ntentiounedvtn the tender documents and preceeded"'~ta' Open ;:»hVe'4'prteAe'thids and awarded the contract in faveur of re.spenttent_Ne.:'l.:V»_ V.

4. Aggrieved a=eti0__n---{)f 'respi_c-n;:1_eht No.2, petitioner Company the'v--:State Government under the provfisihrinsr. Karnat:-J{a"'Transparenctr in Public Procurements Act, 'the Act'). However, the said appeal was net._ta1:en-t1p'.ar1d'~~'the respondents in the meanwhile pﬂroceeéifedi tr) award" «e.O.ntraCt in favour of respondent No.4 in E:1'0iation ef__the«Vte'1°n1s and conditions regarding the qualification prescribed in the tender notification, As a result,44"petit;e.ner--Cempany was constrained to approach this V' "C'Z)ii1"t'b}f fihng these writ petitiens. WRNQ. E 1795,/201 1, the tender nettfieatien pertains bids fer running of 66 B1'? SC 1000 sq. rnrn. undergreund 14:35:31.3 from the prepesed 229/66/H KR/' gas insulated switchgear statten te the existing 68/'it suhwstatien at E $3 Kadugodi and Jayahagar. Whereae, in W.P.N0. .1. the tender hettfieatton pertains to the biﬁs f{:é:".__ r::shnt'11gt'0_:f V' underground Cable from the propezs'e"Ci"--422Cf/6tf§}':A}'V:i'4_ insulated switchgear statien to the statien at Vikas 'Technical Park 'the Keznteergivet

6. The main e0nter'it.eion_': Vast" eémvaseed by Mr. S.Vijayshahkar, learned Sehior .'V_C<§ur:'ee1"fgetpgﬁearing for the petitioner-Compzgmyxt.ﬁre that; A e

ii) ThQr1gh.4_%esjp0'11(§eﬁt.. No.2; did not satisfy the requiretneVr1t_VTs_pVe1t" Conditions Contained in the tender nQ'tifieé1t:o'h.,:'pgti*tieuI.ar1y Ciause 20(1) (13) Note (111), the respor1dent.é=,have" '11teg§;rt;3"" preferred respondent N04 V disrega§?d"i11g the legally Valid Claim of the petitiener.

same; Ceunsei submits that the reievant etat;se_ r1e't7e:::~i.eVet fet.;eve requires that bidders should have EL _1egah32'««..\sa}_j2Ct' .e.f':§oihg manufateturing eellaboratioh agreement tilt the CO11F}p}€ii(}1"1 ef the prejeet with a who has atieast seven years experience in design?

"'--'ttfhe:t{ufaeturing, testing and supply ef 66 KY 1000 sq. mm; or ~ hhigher size and vottage ciass, XLPE insulated segmented eezhpaet type tvhihtkeh EH1? uhﬁergrouhd eahlee with a. further it?

tt stipulation that mere tranefer of teehnelegy _ manufacturing eeltaberater wilt net be aeeep'te.et.~..itﬁftreugh respondent No.4 did. not comply xvith:=the,eett€i contrary to the findings of theV.'i'e_ehnie}3_1V 'Serutit'1§rVVCernrnjttee_'°. recorded in its preeeedings datettV'Vt'2:{§pv.'}.Ou.20ViO. ﬁ:t§.I2.201O specifically stating that between respondent No.4 and M/ not meet these parameters, the has ignored the same. ' " " ' {ii} the agreement disclosed that it wee. paper that was purchased subsequent te°'~the .c1pe'V:.teA'rehegreernent thereby rendering the 'V int%ai'id;«'the same has been ignored. In this ...§e£crne;@'Iv.T.3'eni0r Counsel has relied on the judgment da:éd«.2'2.0e}.ee:_rtenderedr in WaP,NO,38217~1.9,/2010§ wherein Cetxrttvvthaeétupheld the action cf the KPTCL. in rejecting a produced by a bidder executed prior to the date of ef the stamp paper.

T {iii} He further contends that in respect of the bid enquiry VA retatirtg te tower N928, though the Tender Scrutiny Cietnrnittee in ite preeeedinge §3;ted l£i£.{Li§g201{}:§£1ae reeoréed a finding that rt;

if the manufacturing eollaboration agreernent respondent No.4 does not fulfill themtgnalilying"'regtiirenient instead of rejecting the bid. of respon'd,en:t"Next;.the"'eeine.._hev;5 been considered and accepted.

(iv) lt is also contended that"respondent.T§:o.l3ijfe§iled to V Comply with the requirement of the ftlrnishla legally enforceable undertakixk , manufacturing collaborator to performance and warranty cable, in as much as, respondent~~..3§o;:tl.;_;te; eubsidiary company of the Prine'i;pal_ __ Kaole AG and therefore, the undertaking given Even otherwise, the inforrnation_ fnrn-ieheel respondent No.4 that it was 'V:V_etib$icli:a.ryE"-Ref - M/S. Bruggs Kable AG, was M/S. Bruggs Kable AG did not hold shares in the »;getitivonerj:--ACon1pany and hence, there was no relationship ~l«ifg-'..ot'-.,prineipalA7~and subsidiary. Despite the sarne, the Tender Authority in its minutes has held that the License to How Agreement was at legally valid ongoing V _ lllrnannfaetnring eellaboratton agreement anel not a mere transfer ef teehnelegy.

ﬂy {iv} it is contended that the entire action ' Accepting Authority is against the profeisions of it Rules framed thereunder, in as rnueh, asgfthe eval'na'tiond'in1aéle and the opinion expressed by the iteohnieal e:<perré;'S§'Wl1VQ_are§ partpu F of the Tender Scrutiny Corrirnitteie béeh arbitrarily overruled and ignored __ VA _ (V) Counsel for the petit_ione.r.7h~as_In.rther. contended that though Section _l.€%tof_ vforsjxaln appeal to the prescribed the is the Principal Secretary Energy Department, the said remedy nor feasible. It is submitted that the Apf;e_llat.e is a member of the Board of 4_'.Vl.:)i1'€()l;(>1;"::3'VOf the whose action is impugned in the writ drpetition. is made to the observations of the Apex Conrthin tl*ie"_'jnd;afnent in A.K.KRAIPAK vs 'UNION ore' INDIA --~ V V' AIR 1é?0 S_C'1E5'{i, wherein it is held that "it is against all canons '€3f:}Li_S,{lC€ te make a man judge in his own eau$e'1 Reliance is a._iso_V'p--:aeee on the judgment in RAM & SHYAM COMPANY vs h "if eTAii'E or HARYANA M AIR 1985 so 1147, in this regard. 5% My i ti».

7'. Respondent No.2 ~« KPTCL and respondent emerged as the successful bidder and -in veheseeldi'§a*:e¥urf¢.the Contract is new awarded have filed: Separate" _siaterr1eirit._. bf. objections resisting the eontentier1,s"u_rged.thy the lp.etl't_i<5ner';:

8. Learned Senior Ceunsel 'fer' respondent $0.2 Mi:

Naganand taking me thretigh of ohjdeetions filed has urged that the availed the alternative remedy'l§§Z'prei7erri.ri;,r;': antdlaiajb-eal_Vl5eiore the Appellate Authority. iaetirtion. Several decisions are reliedtVlnl"ij0n..:ein eeni'ieetieln"'ineluding the decision in DELHI GIYIE--.AUTO':SERVICE_STATION .3: OTHERS vs BI-IARATH PETROLEUM CORP()VRi¢\:f£.I()i~I_&_-4 ~{2009)16 sec: 766. He has urged that there is nldénfirrnrtyderarbitrariness in the decision making "l };reeess'of_the~.resp0nd'eniiéautherities and therefore, there is no s<:_0peT "i3rV'--v.inte'rferenee in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Dealitiglwith ltxherseope efjudieial review in Contractual matters, he subrnits; that in the matter of award of eentraet and afeeeijtaneel of tender; the Apex Ceurt has eerisistently held that '--«larhgerlnublie interest has ta he kept in mind and in the absence '"eflarhitrariness.a rnalafides er faveuritisrn, interference in writ 10 jurisdiction is not ealied. fer. Reliance is" placed (:11'ti*:e4_f0He;wif:g_'" L, judgments in this regard. _V (1) RAJASTHAN HOUSINC:""' EQARD_ & IsNO'£'HER VS G.,S.IN'VESTMENTS 3: ANo14HER.;'--:t2eef7; 477;

(ii) JAGADISH MANDA;,_vs e%1'fA*;*E or' 0_e1ssA & OTHERS - (2o07)14 see 51'_z;~._ _, ' ' (111) 1vIr:ERU;:"I'I_. _ *DEVELo_P1uI«:m****~"' AUTHORITY vs ASSOCIATIOIWOF s:»unms~ (2009)6 sec 171.

9. Leart1ed'*~CVdu':i:;sve1 has "--stro__t1g1yj refuted the Contention urged the t§et;tiQﬁer"«vt_ﬁat_ there was no manufacturing eoiiaboratien.betveeeﬁ i'esp5"n§Ie}1t Ne/i and M / s. Bruggs Kable AG and that theme was a teehnolegy transfer agreement. hztsﬁpieinted 0ut t'h'at the Committee has found that the No.4} had recently established a maIiu;faetuvrifig'3..V_emit in India in respect ef EHV Cables and had TT"'-.4.4_'e:ttered ':§r1t:() a Framework Agreement Trademark License and Knew Haw Agreement with M/st Bruggs Kabie a fereign manufacturer. The Tender Accepting Cemmittee 4'ha:;-irlg eensieiered the previsiens ef the framewerk agreement in detaii with *:he asséstanee and facilities provided by the foreign ll manufacturer to respondent Nomi as per the terms of the.._sa:i«:l agreement was eatisfied that the agreement was not eenftnle<il't.o tranefer of technology and the foreign rnanufaeture_rl'was:in involved in the rnannfaeturin re'eeSs*« rt 'ht frorn eiesi:i6n--; conceptualization npto the mannfaetnring A' of ffrnifshecl Further, he contends that the committee .also_le;;aini'neri'l:that"

there was a legally enforeeahle gi§en'by respondent No.4 jointly with the foreiérit whereunder the foreign manui'aCtLUfer_.\vhollhis I eonsortium has jointly agreed" Etna illreelnonsibility for design manufacturer,_l"'telSt;:*--1;,:Aan<ﬁl._j" performance of the undergrotrnd. ensuring quality of the undergronneta4_etablel' = components manufactured by __respon§ler1t.No.4l"apart from providing Warranty for repair and replacement tote-nsure successful performance. lO..l' ha£;3._fnrther eontendeel that the Committee has 'decided tollrely upon the eonsortiurn agreement and ignored the eoltalooration agreement. He has further eontended that after ___"1thefpriee bids were opened an 23,l2.200l, respondent No.43 was found te be fewest and therefore a oleersion has been taken tn award the Contract in favour of responelent Neal». He 5% we"?

E 12 therefore contends that the decision of the Board of Directors of responolent No.2 which considers all the relevargt-.laSl;5ee'ts pointed out by the committee cannot be 1"0111'1'€l.__"l"&?.11l.1vv"1';11€l¥l_<:

Referring to the original records an(1"drawing..&th:ejattention the Court to the original undertakin§'.«V_he_1iaoints date 01.11.2000 mentioned "s:an~..pl~-.:p;a.{§éi:~'~ at"

typographical mistake and .pointe~ 'o that _origiln'a1.. iinclertaking is in fact dated 01.11.2010 and is purchased on 15.10.2010 anel' given is not invalid unlike involved in the judgmentvc.<.iatee1'~?;2.;03_,2Gl--1j'1 W.P.No.38217~19/2010, wherein '1 of the said case that the agreement e:i.terec:learlier and the stamp paper on _ V which writtenvvas purchased at a later point of time. TiV1r."v.._lJayak:::mar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel rep.res.enting'l"f'jreéponclent No.4 strongly refutes ail the leontentionze; urged by the petitioner and supports the action ta§~:Aenl"1:>y reepondent No.2 in accepting the bicl of respondent 1 He aieo points out the tygographieal mistake in uﬁrnelntioning the date as 01.1 1.2000 instead of 01.11.2010 in the er:igiria1 undertaking given anal suhniiie that the objection it 1,.

er 13 raised in this regard by the petitiener is hyper teehnieeﬁranci untenabie. Drawing the attentien ef the Cegrt:VVte:'Vi.th.e eensertiurn agreement, particularly to page statement of objections, where tiiie" '*'pr0fQrrn;if'V:v?3f Viiegaiiyé enforeeabie deed ef undertaking to be bfurriiehediii:§}zi.t1<?.e principals for supply of equiprneritﬁ is :j1'QdU(}e5.:, if-.:e'V"e'ufi:)rnits"' that the reference made ﬁg bideIiere..'rJhe--.eAare'eubsidieiries and have recently estabiisheci' india for the equipment for requirement to furnish stipulated in the bid enquiry__is_A'the' and is not what has been stated by AG, therefore, the contention urged that "ries'pQn?5.entA' 'Claimed as subsidiary of M/s. Bruggs_§:KVah1e AG,' ieirriisetrnceixired. flaring the learned Counsel for the parties and en earefuihcensici-é:r.2{ti0n of the various contentions urged by them, _ _ the paints that arise fer consideration are, it whether the petitioner eught :0 have pursued the V. --..Ta§terna£rt>e remedt; availahie?

{it} whether the {rotten ej' respondent No.2 » KPTCL in accepting the brats and in awarding the centres: £2: questieri in g .

'S 14 favour of respondent No.4 suffers from any arbi:;rarfg'r._Vor unreasonable aetion or is otherwise iilegai _...::2¢2rro:éf_ijif:;q. interference in exercise of the writfjurisdicréon?

13. Point No.1:-- Though the petiUoI:Aer__has_'fife'd':anfxappealt ff during the Course of arguments, petiﬁonerfhas':s_ubrriitfe§"=.1;ﬁaf the appeal is not pressed. As eo:_i1';eVr1dedA'b3% ihe Counsel Mr. Vijaysharrkar, to Government of Karnataka";..f3epa_rtr%r1efr1'f"-.of who is the Appellate Authorityais or}e":the-- the Board of Directors of Vﬁoard has taken the impugned Confraet to respondent No.4, the _tf.reVV'petitioner that the appeal provided eeforeVthe_:;zap'pefi'a_fe'«féiuthority is not an efficacious remedy? --deserve:~:._to'be' aeeepted in the facts and Circumstances of-this'e--case';'. Farr: a1s&:'5£"the View that no useful purpose will be 'V "the peiitiener to approach the Appellate Au:f1e.rffy a£.f'h§_s'fV:stage§ as the Contract is aﬁegedly awarded to

7.«.'_responde'n:A'No.4« and the firs: of the writ petifiens was ﬂied In .::oor;§:h of March 201} and the same is pending for the last

--.._"}aear%Iy three H10f1thS. Hence, I am of the View {hat petitioner ﬂzzeeci nest'; be éireeteei to avail {he aiferrfative rerrgeciy in the %/ 15 instant ease, Peint No.1 is aecerdingiy answered in faveur of the peiiiiezzer.

14. Point No.2:--~ The main basis of the g_rie'x_?aneeA_d."~ed'f iihe petitioner rests en the tender COﬁdiﬁOf1 eont'ained.__in_VC1a'i;se« N0.2.O{i}(b) Note {iii} which prescribes4'th§'--qua1iﬁz.3;ng"teehcnieai'g requirement. It reads as under:

"They should have '}e_gaI}§fm\raiiri{ eingeing rnannfaeturing collaboration (mere'trans'}'erii'»V:ef from their rnanufaeturingv e011aberafof-- be accepted) agreementfa/h§je.%riV .{%arhdi'ty--.a_4deast till the end of the eoni'r)'V1e"_§;i0n" a manufacturer who hasve,./atleastrvdhd35*::§seven}V._:§7ears_e:rperienCe in the design, n1ar}ufa,etnVr'ir1§§.,__::testi.ng.._anrd_'supply of 56 KV, 1000 sq. "Voltage Class, XLPE insulated segmental *<:Qrnpae;1:u 'urj7pe Mﬂliken EHV underground urhiehehoulri have been in satisfactery service / a period of 3 (three) years in the the date of opening of bid. In such an .K.e<;?enVt; '.V7ihea1'vhidder shall furnish aleng with his bid, "éaca'§ﬁe:1£ary evidence including the copy of the V jLrnar';1;rfae'rur"ing eeilaberatien agreement duly notarized. ﬂeeessarjg documentary evidence and end user heertifieates for the same shouid alse be eneiesed along math the offer. Further they shall conduct nerma} type tests as per the relevant EEC 60840 en the XLPEE eahie ef €36 Ki? er higher vehage ieveé ef same design and rnateniai i l6 of same and higher cross section at his east .§rorini._an internationally recognized testing laboratosgy4"_«,xfi'Lhi>ii't..& affecting the delivery schedule,"

15. The Centention of the petitione_r...i.s__that_:".eoriti};g;.r§}'=to.Vth.¢ it"

above requirement which spells out tE;'1"at" rnere transfer will not accepted, respelnelerit No-..4l has lfu'rnished..3only --. L' 3 "Know How License 1§lgreeme_1if't-_:en.terecl'l xttith M/s. Bruggs Kable AG, SwitZerlandl,_L not fulfill the technical requirement of manufacturing collaboration. Committee which are in:§W.P.No. 1 1796/2011 are heavily rielieel The Tender Scrutiny Committeellhss Know How License Agreement was a mere trahsfer'~of technology i.e., to say rnere transfer of E.Gio3,vV'E:lovJ<"ietn€i..not a rnétnufaeturing collaboration. it has also .\4'~ eVX--pressed_l*i.ts' Vtziefws that even the requirement of the mannfseturingZfzjollaboration being Valid till the completion of projei:t__h3is also not guaranteed as the linew How License stipulated that in the event the Eieensee faileé te Vh*----."Ve:xereise the licensed technology by 311232010, the lieensor shall be entitled to terminate the license agreement. Reference is also rnaele by the eornrnittee tn one of the eonﬁitions in the 5%/we license agreement, wherein it is stated that respQ':1e§en1';_ '1'9§e_.$%.e shall take full Inability fer the pnjdnets basis of teehnieai decumentatien and M/ s. Bruggs Kable AG and the eernpanybltnade Wa4r:"ant'y'--.V:eVf~_VV representation regarding the efficiency of rt;-ethecu:{'s<ef"tn the' quality. Costs, safety or any zothert'e'1ta1faeteristies 'whatsoever fer the Cables rnannfactureti VA .VNo/L and the accessories instatlfzétt by the e_(resp-endent No.4) which made it Clear undertake to guarantee the qua1ityt...egfV"Vthe:'1--1ea.bies' V_tna:'r1ufaVcV'-fured by the licensee «~ respondent T6. Hﬁxvenef', M it "noticed that apart from the petitioner andau'1*esp'endent other bidders had submitted their Ve.fter:S---t.,pq.;§uant« t3""the tender notification issued. In fact, afteii the _tende:=s_ "were invited, resp0ndent~auth0n'.ttes issued two to the tender netifieation on 083102010 'making eeftatn alterations regarding the time frame and with tiegaféte the eeznditions at tninnnutn quahfying requirement at 'V"~Vt____"'htdV:§.ers. Aceerdtng te the resps:)ndent--auth<::nt1es, the Varnendtnents were made in order te widen the participation of the eentraeters. The Tender Elvainatten Committee has gjgy 18 eonsidered the technical bid submitted by partieuiariy with regard to the manufacturing warranty'.

17. The Cernrnittee has found that rzespentcient_:"t«Ic§g};r.__/1g{};id established recently a manufaetiiringg plarrt in Ir:b{;1ia.:._ia...respeet2 L' of EHV cables and had entered agreemerit, Trademark License Agreentetit A Agrernent with foreign manufacturer M/s:..Brt1ggsV [Ihe provisions of the said frame\yiérh«ag:téemhen€{;. ecinsidered and taken note of by the and facilities provided by the resgaetndent No.4 are examined.

Based on the" same; ~.ti1eV4"e_t5ir;r"nittee was satisfied that the agreement was"~no"t .ecjnfii1e€:i'*"to transfer of technology and the foreigij'inartufacttrrer'was invoived in rnanufacturing process right freV:n"v:i»estgrr; eoneeptualization upto the manufacturing of finistreidh gootiesf The committee has also taken into _'4e0nsidera.tie'r1 the fact that a iegaiiy enforceable undertaking 'teas Verieieseei Whereunder it was jointiy agreed by respendent ___"f€e.éi§;an& foreign manufacturer to undertake the respensibiiity tier design manufacturer test and sueeessfui perforrrzanee of the iiEd€I"§FQtii':d eahie and eeguiement taking 521% resnensihility for 03/;

1 19 the quality of the Cable and the components rnantrfaeitgtgreejl' respe-ndent No.4. 'Fhe warranty, as feund by.,:t§e1...<::§f;n:;;::tee has been provided jointiy by respondent manufacturer for repairing and replacing. 'Thus, .theA eomniittee has been satisfied that there is"Vs.V:VVieg:a1i}7 hcieed of undertaking and the eastingebligation on the Consortium mernbersthe obligations under the Centr2tctt':i.:V'ift1e the conclusion that the beaccepted as it met ail the pai'aII1'€'t€'I'S:£ in mind the interest of the KPTCi;._ '- i

18. Pur.sua,nt'V to the" sstici tiectsion, the price bids have been e"pene'd orrevaiuéttien respondent No.4's bid is found to be the ~e.th_'Verefore a decision is taken to award the i it ' contrast in_fa§'€}:2r sf respondent No.4. The Board of Directors the respondent heave Considered the decision of the and taking note of silt aspects of the matter have i .___"eEeci::ie<:i to award the eentrset ts resgzendent N034. it is else necessary to notice here that a letter had been "received by the Board of Directors alleging that same of the documents submitted by respondent N94 were bogus' The 20 said aspect was atso examined by the Board and ha§ring'f{3:t;r;d that there was no substance in such aitegationndd thee:

proceeded ts accept the eonirnitteefs""deeirsie<n '2:n2_vard:'.Vthe& contract to respondent No.4. Pursuantto'-thte sarne, 'respd:§dent._ No.4 has entered into an agreern.ent_ with respVonde"n.t""N0I2 on"

23.02.2011. Therefore, the contentidn 'nrged hfy*the.~v petitioner that respondent No.4 did requirements of the bid has no stibs__tanc:eV'in'}a;w."

20. As regards date mentioned in the original the purchase of stamp paper made on seen from the original letter of undertaking pi'acedehefo1--'e the Court along with records by the Lrespendetit---No.2 that the mistake in mentioning the said date a typographical error. The undertaking is dated The stam? Patﬁer is pure/hased on It i0.'§_%Q1tsOr but white mentioning the date in the agreement it vrifoiz.g1y typed as 01.11.2000. Much significance Cannot he __ "«dattaehed te this mistake.

" Similarly, the terms and conditions eontained in the " -«Knew How Agreement etearty disclose that it is not just an agreement ts transfer the teehneiegy er the Know' How, but it i 21 provides for active participation of the foreign coi}abora{orp:'ine * the manufacture. i'v'i;'s. Bruggs Kahie.

Consortium. The Committee after exzianiiiniriig étnd* the documents relating to the o,;gr'eementt eonsortio§rn.._H3,nsii undertaking, has Come to a dear satisfies the requirement Contained iI1~.h:fh'€ 'd.V_tend;er'=.fnodtifipeation and fully safeguards the interest of In such circumstances, H é be ' fsspondent No.2 has acted in an rneinner Contrary to the terms and notiiiedotion to treat respondent No.4's Vets any extraneous or ulterior Consider_a_tions';'~i No.93-seA'is niade out about the violation of any it other of theft-e't or the Ruies framed thereunder. right1y'«--..eontended by the Counsel appearing for the respo'riden5ts;'~.the_'sieope of judicial review in these matters is _iirnited'.---- Thedyagdieiai review is intended to prevent arbitrariness? "'v.4"irra.tiopnaiity*, onreasonabieness, bias and niaiafides and also it eoiitrlzrwention of any statutory provisions. The purpose here is 'toeheek Whether the choice or the decision is made lawfully A " ~ end not to check whether ehoiee or decision is sound, As iong as the erieeision reisting to award of contract is honaiide and is E:

E 1 2% 'Mi 22 ' "

in public intereeti, Courts Wit} net, in exercise judicial rexrtexag Came to the aid ef privétte »§i'£€§};K7'L§iLt.Ct1SV'E2'(,, theveosii they jjeoﬁksert' at V' of public interest to decide eentreetuai«tjlibspntesth ease, as I do not find any arbitrat;;y",..ybrnaietftde -Qr"v_un:veéiS'0nable'V' action or violation of the garoeedlzre ntesertbed, 'i'n-the-Vrnatter of selection made for enter_ting'e._V.§n»'t0 "f:c;».nt1'aCt for laying underground eablel ti_here"isV"I);t;> steobpe fe:rg.i:V'iterferenee in the matter in eXeIjet:je..Qt{th;e _jn:is¢iiet1'en_.»

23. The judgment in W;Pi;1Np':3A12eV7;19/2010 relates to a eompleteiay diffetent seit ofyfaete and circumstances where it was found on Vtfaets that étantp 'paper was shown to have been purchased suhsequent tn the agreement, which was the Cause 'V 'fat of the xbici-----submitted by the tenderer. Whereas, in the respondents have dernenstrated that it was! {hie to e'utyp.ti»graphtca} mistake, the year was wrongly typed 'as 200uO..ih:§tead of 2010. Hence, the said judgment is of no V' etesistanee to the petitioner.

'' T24-tg "~-Even the eententien urged regarding the relationship of h':'Prin§eipa} and Subsidiary between the foreign eotnpany MKS, VA Brnggs Kathie AG and respnndent Next» is also 2: contention that has no basis in the feets of the cage. A5 rtghtty <::ent;eneEe::I by 23 {he {earned Counsei for respondent Neal, it is noi; theiijease that; reepomieni N04 is the subsidiary of M;/:3. B;;;'9gL:§s'.'4}{:§L?;}e¢ AG. In fact, such a reference is made in the extracting the proferma prescribed the tend.efAT'd4eeur:ier1Vis3 5:.

and therefore, no significance eé;§17.bé afLa§:1--:ec}.. bu, Accordingly, point No.2 is V»a.f iSayeredV' :11' .VVbfaVdt{fV""0i': the"

respondent-KPTCL 25, In View 0f the above, I (10 rfcfiffinc§~«.aid;§E'~rnérit in these writ petitions. Hence; th.e ':3aIrie a1fe..dis'miSSe:i._ Sdfe Ii€%m%7E% AAAA A §§§§E

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court