Karnataka High Court
Sri Shankara Nagappa Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOS.108695-108696 OF 2017 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHANKARA NAGAPPA NAIK,
S/O NAGAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O: PINNUPAL,
BELAKE VILLAGE & POST,
BHATKAL TALUK, U.K.DISTRICT.
2. SRI NAGESH DURGAPPA NAIK,
S/O DURGAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O: SHIRALIMANE,
GORTE VILLAGE & POST,
BHATKAL TALUK,
U.K. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS
(BY KUM.DEEPA UDIYAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI J.S.SHETTY,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES,
NO.1, ALIASKER ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
KUMTA SUB-DIVISION,
KUMTA.
4. GRAMINA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARI
SANGHA NIYAMITHA, BELAKE,
BHATKAL TALUK-581320,
U.K. DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI V.HOSAMANI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3
SRI S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED
09.08.2017 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN
VIJAYANI DAILY NEWSPAPER DATED 11.08.2017, THE
COPY WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF
BUILDING PERTAINING TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
PROPOSING TO HOUSE ITS OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL
COMPLEX AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER NO.RCS/
CRD/KMC-2/38/2017-18 DATED:14.07.2017 PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDNHET, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN
PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-E.
*****
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners claim to be members of the 4th respondent-Society. The Society proposed to construct a building for the purpose of housing its Registered Office and also a commercial complex since the old building had become dilapidated. An estimate was prepared for a sum of Rs.52.13 lakhs. The 2nd respondent passed an order on 14.07.2017 approving the utilization of Rs.187 lakhs wherein Rs.150 lakhs was to be used from the funds of the 4th respondent and Rs.37 lakhs from its security deposit. That the amount arrived at Rs.187 lakhs is a highly inflated amount. Since the tender value was beyond Rs.50 lakhs, the same is attracted by the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KTPP Act', for short). Challenging the same, the instant petitions are filed. 4
2. It is contended by Smt. Deepa Udiyar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Society is governed by the provisions of the KTPP Act. That the figure of 187 lakhs is a highly bloated amount. Therefore, interference is called for. That the tender notification should be quashed by directing a fresh tender notification to be issued.
3. On the other hand, respondents dispute the same. They contend that the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. That the co-operative society is an independent body. There is no share capital of the State Government. The State Government has no interest in the society except the regulatory control in terms of the Co- operative Societies Act. It is contended that, initially, the estimate was prepared based on the sketch. Subsequently, the entire estimate was revised. The quality of work was changed. The structure of the building was changed. Therefore, the revised estimate was submitted to the Public Works Department for technical approval. After 5 verifying the rate with the standard rate prescribed by the Public Works Department, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Karwar, has recommended the file to the Chief Engineer, Communication and Buildings (North), Dharwad. After approval, a new estimate has been arrived at by the Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer, Karwar, and the Superintendent Engineer, Dharwad, and the Chief Engineer, Dharwad. Therefore, there is no ground to state that the figure is an exaggerated one. The same has been arrived at with the approval of all the concerned authorities. It is further contended that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has given approval for the tender amount of Rs.187 lakhs. The Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, after considering the relevant records, has passed an order in terms of Annexure-E, which is only an administrative approval. Hence, on this ground, it is submitted that the petitions be dismissed.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in the petitions. The 6 petitioners cannot have any grievance with the manner and procedure adopted by the respondents in seeking approval of the building. That even though the initial estimate was for a sum of Rs.52.13 lakhs, the same was prepared only for the purpose of preparing the sketch. Therefore, the contention that it is a highly exaggerated figure runs contrary to the material on record.
5. The further contention that the provisions of the KTPP Act are applicable is also without any justification. The respondents contend that the Government has no role to play in the Society. That the Government exercises only regulatory control over the Society. Hence, this ground too is unacceptable.
6. During the course of hearing this matter on the previous dates, in order to test the contention of the petitioners, he was asked to submit as to whether he could complete the construction within Rs.52.13 lakhs. He readily agreed to do so. Therefore, he was asked to file an 7 affidavit that the construction could be put up within the said amount. The same was placed for consideration before the petitioners' counsel only to test the argument as to whether a building of that nature could be put up within that amount. Even as on date, no such affidavit has been filed. Therefore, the same would also indicate that the tender called for is for a just and appropriate amount. Unjustified grounds without any basis have been urged. In view of the failure to stand by his statement, it is clear that the petitions are filed only to harass the respondents. Hence, on these grounds, I do not find any reason to interfere. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms