Rudramurthy L vs The Director Apmc on 10 July, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rudramurthy L vs The Director Apmc on 10 July, 2014

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                            1

                                                W.P.29210/14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2014

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

       WRIT PETITION NO.29210/2014 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

RUDRAMURTHY L.,
S/O LATE LINGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.89/1, GOWRISHANKAR NAGAR,
OOTY ROAD, MYSORE-571008.
                                              ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.CHIDANANDA KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE DIRECTOR, A.P.M.C.,
       OFFICE OF THE APMC BUILDING,
       RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

2.     THE SECRETARY,
       A.P.M.C, OFFICE OF THE A.P.M.C. YARD,
       BANDIPALYA, OOTY ROAD,
       MYSORE-571008.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI H.K.THIMMEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-2.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 06.06.2014, PUBLISHED IN
DAILY NEWS PAPER BY NAME MYSORE MITHRA DATED
07.06.2014 VIDE ANNEX-C, ISSUED BY THE R-2 & ETC.
                              2

                                                 W.P.29210/14

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Petitioner when said to be the second highest bidder in a public auction relating to allotment of Tea Stalls by the respondent-APMC has presented this petition for a direction to the respondent to allot Tea Stall No.2 in 'B' Block at APMC Yard, Bandipalya, Mysore, on the premise that the first highest bidder failed to fulfill the obligation under the tender by making payment of the bid amount, hence under clause (5) of the tender document if the highest bidder does not pay the bid, amount the earnest money deposit would be forfeited whence an opportunity would be extended to the second highest bidder. According to the petitioner, as aired by his learned counsel, respondent issued a fresh tender notification inviting offers fresh for allotment of the very same tea stall. Hence the petition. 3 W.P.29210/14

2. The Apex Court in Tata Cellular -v- Union of India1, observed that principles of judicial review would apply in the exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism, with inherent limitations since Government is a guardian of the finances of the State and it is expected to protect the financial interest of the State, and the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government; that there is no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or best quotation, and the right to choose cannot be considered as an arbitrary power while exercise of such power for any collateral purpose will be struck down.

3. In the light of the aforesaid observation, respondent having not accepted the offer of the petitioner being the second highest bidder and directed a fresh public auction, in the interest of protecting the 1 AIR 1996 SC 11 4 W.P.29210/14 financial interest of the APMC being a state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no exception can be taken to the said action.

4. Petition devoid of merit is rejected. It is however made clear that petitioner may make his offer in the fresh tender called for and if he is the highest bidder, would be entitled to a consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE ln.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court