Karnataka High Court
M/S.Hind Metals vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2020
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION No.9445/2020 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S.HIND METALS,
CITB PLOT NO.39, RAVINAGAR,
5TH CROSS,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580030,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
R.SIKANDAR BASHA. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAKESH B.BHATT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
P.B.ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.
3. MOHAMMED SAMEER PASHA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
NO.18, AZIZ SAIT INDUSTRIAL AREA TOWN,
MYSORE ROAD, NAYANDAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560039.
ALSO AT NO.322, OLD NO.18/4,
7TH CROSS PIPELINE ROAD,
NEW GUDDADHALLI SHAMANA GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560026. ...RESPONDENTS
-2-
(BY SRI C.P.PRAVEEN, ADV. FOR R2,
SHRI PAVAN SHYAM, ADV. FOR R3 AND
FOR PROPOSED R4,
R1 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN REJECTING THE PETITIONERS
ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE TENDER AS DISPLAYED
IN THE E-PORTAL AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition is by an unsuccessful bidder in the sense whose bid was not considered and rejected at the threshold on account of certain defects in the bid. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court by order dated 31.08.2020 passed an interim order in the following terms:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's application to participate in the e-auction of water supply scrap pipe line and its accessories from Hiriyur to Childradurga.
He would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition auction has been held and that the scrap material has been sold for a paltry sum of Rs.7.4 per K.G. and that the petitioner had in fact offered a sum of Rs.17 per K.G. and the -3- same works-out to Rs.4.5 crores and that the petitioner to demonstrate his bonafides is ready and willing to deposit the said sum within a period of four weeks from today and that the said sum shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank in the name of the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka.
The contentions merit consideration. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.4.5 crores less the sum Rs.58 Lakhs already deposited. The said deposit shall be made in the name of the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Govt. of Karnataka. The Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be deposited in this court and the same shall be retained in the safe custody of the Registrar General.
In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from permitting the removal and transportation of the auctioned pipe line and accessories.
The petitioner shall also take steps to implead the successful bidder by amending the writ petition."
2. Thereafter the 2nd and 3rd respondents have put in their appearance. On the last date of hearing, on a query from this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent had submitted that the 3rd respondent is not in a position to match the offer made by the petitioner whose offer stands at Rs.17 per kg. of scrap material and the maximum price that was offered by the higher bidder i.e., the 3rd respondent was Rs.7.04 per kg of scrap material and before this Court he is prepared to -4- increase and pay a sum of Rs.12/- per kg of scrap material. The 3rd respondent has filed his affidavit which reads as under:
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT, BANGALORE W.P. No. 9445 of 2020 BETWEEN HIND METALS ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS AFFIDAVIT I, MOHAMMED SHAMEER PASHA, S/o Late Mohammed Anwar, aged about 36 years, the proprietor of Respondent No.3- M/S Bharat Steel Traders having Office at No. E/22, 2nd Main,7th B Cross Shamanna Garden, Babuji Nagar, Bangalore
-560026, do hereby affirm on oath as under-
1. I submit that, I am the Proprietor of Respondent No.3 and as such aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and hence competent to swear hereto.
2. I submit that I am filing this affidavit pursuant to order dated 04-11-2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above captioned matter.
3. I submit that the petitioner herein had filed the instant Writ Petition challenging its rejection by Respondent Authorities to participate in e-auction bearing auction number DMA/2020-21/AUCTION 2386. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner offered to pay Rs.17 Per Kg under the aforesaid e--5-
auction tender as against Rs.7.4 per Kg successfully bid by Respondent No.3. To demonstrate its bonafides, the petitioner undertook to deposit an amount of Rs. 4.5 Crores before any Nationalized bank in the name of Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka.
4. I submit that this Hon'ble Court on 23-10-2020 had inquired if Respondent No.3 would be able to match the amount of Rs.17 per Kg of scrap metal offered by petitioner. In response to the same, it is submitted that the respondent No.3 would not be able to match the price of Rs.17 per kg of Scrap Metal under the aforesaid tender since offering bid at Rs.17 per kg would not be financially viable to Respondent No.3.
IDENTIFIED BY ME Sd/-
ADVOCATE Sd/-
BENGALURU DEPONENT
FOR BHARATH STEEL TRADERS
DATED:9/11/2020"
3. In view of the imbroglio, the 2nd respondent was put on notice as to how the Municipality desires to proceed further in the matter. In this regard, the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Chitradurga, one Shri J.T.Hanumantharaju has filed affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent and the same reads as under:-6-
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT, BANGALORE W.P. No. 9445 of 2020 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN HIND METALS ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT Affidavit by Respondent No.2 I, J.T.Hanumantharaju, s/o J.P.Thippeswamy, aged about 55 years, the commissioner, City Municipal Council, Chitradurga, 577 501, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I am the second respondent in the above case and hence I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. I state that, the Auction bid of the petitioner was rejected by the us as the petitioner was not able to furnish appropriate documents to prove his eligibility criteria (previous work done) as per the conditions of the e Auction Bid Document. Later the petitioner gave us representation on 17/08/2020 and by the time we could verify the documents and reply to the petitioner, he has filed the above case before this Hon'ble Court on 18.08.2020.
3. I state that, as of now the work order is not yet awarded to the successful bidder M/s.Bharat Steels Bangalore.
4. I state that, during the proceedings before this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has quoted that he is ready to pay Rs.17 per kg inclusive of taxes for Scrap CI pipe. The Respondent No.3 has represented before this Hon'ble Court on 04/11/2020 that he is ready to pay Rs.12 per kg inclusive of -7- taxes for the same. Before this Hon'ble Court the petitioner has quoted highest price i.e., Rs.17 per kg inclusive of taxes.
5. I state that, we are agreeable to award the contract in favour of the Petitioner at Rs.17 per Kg inclusive of taxes for Scrap CI pipe provided, the petitioner undertakes to execute the work as per the specifications and tender conditions of the bid document.
6. I state that, the award of contract in favour of any highest bidder is subject to the order of this Hon'ble Court.
Wherefore, I prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to take this affidavit on record and pass necessary orders in the interest of Justice and equity.
IDENTIFIED BY ME Sd/-
ADVOCATE Sd/-
Chitradurga DEPONENT
Municipal Commissioner
City Municipal Council
Chitradurga
DATED:13/11/2020"
4. In the light of the above affidavits and more particularly, in the light of the deposition in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the writ petition stands allowed with the above terms.
5. The amount deposited in the name of the 1st respondent shall be transmitted to the account of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall complete the -8- formalities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
6. Out of the amount in deposit with the 2nd respondent, a sum equivalent to 50% shall be released in favour of the petitioner. Remaining 50% shall be transferred to the account of the 2nd respondent. The amount in deposit with the 2nd respondent shall be subject to the final calculations and weighments of the quantum of pipes/scrap generated.
The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE jm/-