Karnataka High Court
Kaveri Mahila Vivid Uddeshagal Seva ... vs District Social Welfare Officer on 30 August, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
W.P. NO. 102795/2017 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
KAVERI MAHILA VIVID UDDESHAGAL
SEVA SAUNSTE, K.C. RANI ROAD,
OPP. MODEL HIGH SCHOOL, GADAG,
DIST. GADAG, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY SMT. SHAKUNTHLA,
W/O SURESH ANGADI, AGE 46 YEARS.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DISTRICT BACKWARD CLASS
WELFARE DEPT. REP. BY ITS
DISTRICT OFFICER,
GADAG DIST. GADAG.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GADAG DIST, GADAG.
3. KAVERI MAHILA VIVID UDDESHAGAL
SEVA SAUNSTE, K.C. RANI ROAD,
OPP. MODEL HIGH SCHOOL, GADAG,
DIST. GADAG, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O SURESH ANGADI,
AGE: 46 YEARS.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATIONS DATED 02.03.2017 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, E, F, G AND H
& ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned tender notification dated 02.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 vide Annexures D, E, F, G and H.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for respondent No.3.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 in violation of The Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and Rules (for short 'Act & Rules') invited tender for supply of food material to pre-metric and post-metric hostels in Gadag district. The petitioner-Mahila Sangha is registered under Karnataka Society Registration 3 Act and it has obtained license by the Government to do the commercial business, copy of the registration certificate and license certificate is produced herewith marked as Annexures A and B. The petitioner issued a tender notification published on 02.03.2017 inviting tenders for supply of food materials to pre-metric and post-metric hostels. The said notification was published in the newspaper on 04.03.2017 giving the last date for uploading the tender was 03.04.2017 and the amount put to tender is shown as Rs.320.92 lakhs which is produced as Annexure-C.
4. Further, after uploading the tender notification, the petitioner found that a separate application has to be filed for taluk wise and earnest money has to be deposited for participating in the tender. Copy of the tender notification dated 02.03.2017 downloaded from e-portal of each of the taluk is produced as Annexure-D, E, F, G and H. Further, the amount of tender is more than Rs. 2 crores. The minimum time for submission of tenders in excess of two 4 crore is less than 60 days and it is contrary to Rule 17(2) of KTPP Rules, 2000. Whereas Rule 11(2) prohibits the tender inviting authorities for using the brand name while calling for the tender. However, in the present case the respondent used the brand names for supply of the materials like MTR Chilli powder, MTR Vermicelli, MTR Jamoon mix, MTR Pickle, MTR Puliogere mix, Dhara refined oil, Red label tea powder, Tata Salt, Marrie gold biscuit, etc. Further, Rule 7 of KTPP Rules requires that tender notice should be published in the State Tender Bulletin if the procurement is more than Rs. One crore. Whereas the respondent has not published the aforesaid tender notification in the said bulletin and as such it requires to be quashed. Further, some of the conditions in the tender documents are so vague and they have not clearly mentioned in the documents and these conditions may be interpreted either way also as it is contrary to the rules and regulations of the aforesaid Act. For the reasons stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the writ petition.
5
5. Countering the aforesaid contentions, learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has contended that the respondent No.1 invited e-procurement tender for Gadag District in talukawise. The E-Tender to upload the form on 02.03.2017, for clarification on 03.04.2017 and last date of uploading the tender on 04.04.2017 to open the technical bid is on 06.04.2017 and opening of the financial bid on 08.04.2017. All these facts which are incorporated in the E- procurement tender. The specification for food materials of fair good quality of schedule of specification at Sl. No. 25 reveals as "Red Chilli Powder (MTR/Everest/Nandi). It relates to Rule 11(1)(a) of the Rules. Rule 11(1)(a) of the Rules reads as under:
"2(a) use of brand-names and catalogue numbers shall be avoided and where it becomes unavoidable, among with the brand name the expression "or equivalent"
shall be added."
Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of equivalent it shall be 6 added in the specification for food materials, does not hold substance and is not contrary to any rules.
6. In support of her contention the learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 and 2 placed reliance on 2009 (6) Kar. L.J. 396 (Mubeen Pasha V. The Managing Director, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company, Bangalore and others) to contend that the petitioner has no locus to file seek any relief since the petitioner was not one of the participant in the tender process. Merely because a person being a litigant would get a locus to file the writ petition only if he is interested in the subject matter to prove that he has participated in the tender.
7. Further, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has participated in the tender and he had experience in taking up work of such magnitude. Even though there is averment in the writ petition that award of contract is for extraneous consideration as the ratio of the ruling is applicable to the present case questioning 7 Annexures D, E, F, G and H issued by the respondent No.1 in tender notification dated 02.03.2017.
In view of the above, learned AGA prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 adopted the arguments of the learned AGA and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Having regard to the contentions of the respective parties, it is relevant to state that Annexure-C is the E- procurement tender issued by the respondent No.1 dated 02.03.2017 for supply of food materials to pre-metric and post-metric hostels. The notification was published in the newspaper on 04.03.2017 by giving details and also the last date for uploading the tender is 04.03.2017 by giving details and also uploading the tender was 03.04.2017 whereas the amount of the tender is Rs.320.92 lakhs as per Annexure-C of the e-procurement tender. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the e-tender is contrary 8 to Rule 11(2)(a) does not stand to scrutiny. The specification for food materials of fair good quality of schedule of specification at Sl. No. 25 reveals as "Red Chilli Powder (MTR/Everest/Nandi). In Group-A of the specification totally 41 items are notified. It relates to Rule 11(1)(a) of the Rules. Rule 11(1)(a) of the Rules. Further, the amount of tender is more than Rs. 2 crores. The minimum time for submission of tenders in excess of two crore is less than 60 days and it is contrary to Rule 17(2) of KTPP Rules, 2000. Therefore, the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of 17(2) of KTPP Rules, 2000 that the tender is contrary to the Rules, does not hold force.
In view of the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit in as much as no grounds are made out and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE Bvv