Karnataka High Court
M/S. Adarsh Enterprises vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
WP No. 105982 of 2022
C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022,
WP No. 105984 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105982 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 105983 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 105984 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)
IN WP NO. 105982 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S. ADARSH ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY
ANTHONY MUTTANNA ALTHANDRA
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 209B/18C, DEENABANDHU COLONY,
KARAWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580029.
...PETITIONER
BHARATHI
HM
High Court
(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
of
Karnataka,
Dharwad AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARIAT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (SWM)
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNCIPAL CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
3. THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
-2-
WP No. 105982 of 2022
C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022,
WP No. 105984 of 2022
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2 AND R.3;
SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R.3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER ORDER NO.H.D.M.C./74/05/2022-
23/RPID-1106, DATED 09/12/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS.
IN WP NO. 105983 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S. ADARSH ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY
ANTHONY MUTTANNA ALTHANDRA
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 209B/18C, DEENABANDHU COLONY,
KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580029.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARIAT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (SWM)
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNCIPAL CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
-3-
WP No. 105982 of 2022
C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022,
WP No. 105984 of 2022
3. THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2 AND R.3;
SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER ORDER NO.H.D.M.C./74/05/2022-
23/RPID-1105, DATED 09/12/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS.
IN W.P.NO.105984 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S. ARIWAD SERVICES
REPRESENTED BY
KRISHNA S/O. OBALESH ARAWED
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NO.07, AZAD NAGAR ROAD,
JAI BHEEM NAGAR, MADARAMADDI,
DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARIAT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (SWM)
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNCIPAL
-4-
WP No. 105982 of 2022
C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022,
WP No. 105984 of 2022
CORPORATION, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
3. THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2 AND R.3;
SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R.3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER ORDER NO.H.D.M.C./74/5/2022-
23/RPID-1104 DATED 09/12/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri Harshawardhan M. Patil, for petitioners, learned counsel Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, for respondent No.3, Sri Prashant V. Mogali, learned HCGP, for respondent No.1.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 Corporation had called for tender inviting tenderers for providing 88 drivers for its auto-tipper vehicles for -5- WP No. 105982 of 2022 C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022, WP No. 105984 of 2022 collecting waste. The petitioner was the successful bidder worked for a period from 31.10.2019 to 30.10.2020. Time and again the tender was extended and allotted to the petitioner by following the SWM Rules, 2016. The petitioner is also been continuing to do the work by way of extension granted by respondent No.3 Corporation.
3. This being the state of affairs, respondent corporation issued a show cause notice on 14.09.2022 to the petitioner alleging that he is not paying EPF and ESI to the Employees and despite receiving the tender amount from respondent corporation, the petitioner has not paid salary to the drivers since July 2022 and accordingly directed the petitioner to submit relevant documents to the Corporation mentioned in the show cause notice. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice along with relevant documents of payment and also EPF and ESI to the drivers. Despite submitting all the necessary required documents to the corporation, without considering the compliance of the requirements, respondent corporation -6- WP No. 105982 of 2022 C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022, WP No. 105984 of 2022 has cancelled the tender allotted to the petitioner without any valid reason. Hence, the petitioner has questioned the cancellation of tender, vide Annexure-D dated 09.12.2022.
4. Accordingly the petitioner is before this Court in view of the cancellation of the tender and certain allegations made in the said Annexure-D cancellation order that the petitioner has not produced EPF and ESI certificates to the corporation which would in turn effect their future tender participation as that will become a black mark in the petitioner participating in any future tenders. Accordingly he seeks for allowing the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel Sri Girish Hiregoudar appearing for respondent No.3 corporation contends that petition itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that subsequent to the order passed on 09.12.2022, fresh tenders have been called by tender notification dated 21.12.2022, in which the petitioner has also participated. In the technical bid the tender of the petitioner came to be -7- WP No. 105982 of 2022 C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022, WP No. 105984 of 2022 rejected which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.101921/2023. The same came to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as there is an alternative efficacious remedy.
6. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that when fresh tender has been floated and the petitioner having participated, the purpose of considering or entertaining these writ petitions would be redundant as no purpose will be served in considering these petitions. More so, no such remark or conclusion is arrived or made with regard to petitioner being black listed for the reason that he has not produced the ESI and EPF certificate, which is also not the reason for rejection of the fresh tender floated by the corporation. Accordingly he seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. The facts stated by respondent No.3 with regard to floating of fresh tender, rejection of the technical bid of petitioner which is not for the reason of ESI and EPF -8- WP No. 105982 of 2022 C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022, WP No. 105984 of 2022 certificates not being furnished by the petitioner, is not disputed by the learned counsel for petitioner. Therefore, consideration of these petitions in my opinion would serve no useful purpose and it would become redundant for the reason fresh tender has been floated in which the petitioner participated in which his technical bid is rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the same before the appellate authority under the provision provided in the Act.
8. Therefore, I do not find any good, cogent reasons or grounds to interfere with the orders, which is passed vide Annexure-D as to same would not cause any hindrance or obstacle to the petitioner participating in tenders in future, if any. Hence in view of such submissions and observations, these petitions do not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, I pass the following order; -9- WP No. 105982 of 2022
C/W WP No. 105983 of 2022, WP No. 105984 of 2022 ORDER Writ petitions are dismissed.
Costs made easy.
SD/-
JUDGE MRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5