Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Sulabh Sauchalaya vs The Managing Director And Ors on 26 May, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 201455 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 201455 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA SULABH SAUCHALAYA
NAIRAMALIKARNA, NAGAR, GRAMEENA,
PATTANA, POURA, MAHILEYARA
AND PURUSHARA SWAYAM SEVA SAMSTHE,
BAGALKOT, VIJAYAPURA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
R/O AT H NO.242, SHRI RENUKA DEVI NIVAS,
S R COLONY, JALANAGAR, VIJAYAPURA - 586109.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KALYAN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN OPP.KBN HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI - 585102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KALYAN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, BIDAR DIVISION,
BIDAR - 585401.
3. THE CHIEF TRAFICE MANAGER,
KALYAN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE,
OPP. KBN HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
-2-
WP No. 201455 of 2023
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED
LETTER BEARING NO.KK RA SA.KEK.SAM VA : 5865.22-23,
DATED 28.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE-E AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREUNTO
AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :-
"To issue a writ of certiorari thereby quash the impugned letter bearing No.KK Ra Sa:Kek:Sam Va :
5865.22-23, dated 28.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent at Annexure-E and all further proceedings thereunto as illegal."
2. The second respondent - Divisional Controller, Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (RTC) has issued e-tender publication on 22.02.2023 inviting the tender for maintenance of the toilets, premises, buildings, staff rest rooms and entire bus stands in Bidar division for a period of three years.
3. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner had applied by complying with the relevant criteria. There is one another bidder Smt.Shantabai W/o P.Jalgar who had -3- WP No. 201455 of 2023 bid and emerged as highest bidder at `2,52,786/- and the petitioner came to be the second highest bidder at `1,37,786/-. Both the above bids being higher than the minimum rate fixed at `1,28,002/-.
4. The tender Committee rejected the bid of Smt.Shanthabi on finding that she had already been blacklisted. Since the petitioner was the next highest bidder a recommendation was made to award the tender to the petitioner by the second respondent to the third respondent. The third respondent however rejected the bid, cancelled the tender and directed for re-tender on account of competitive rates not being received.
5. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner contending that it has spent huge monies, issued a legal notice calling upon respondents to award tender in favour of the petitioner and same was not done, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief. -4- WP No. 201455 of 2023
6. The contention of Sri Mahesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the second highest bidder. The bids having been received by the respondent, the highest bidder being blacklisted, the tender ought to have been awarded to the petitioner instead of a direction for re-tendering the issue. The petitioner being the second highest bidder has a vested right to be awarded to the contract.
7. Sri Deepak V.Barad, learned counsel for the RTC on instruction submits that one Sri Shivakumar Jalgar is the Secretary of the petitioner and the other bidder Smt.Shanthabai W/o Parashuram Jalgar is his mother. It is in that background, there being no competitive bids, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected. He submits that fresh tender would be issued and petitioner would always be free to participate in the same.
8. Taking into consideration that the base rate fixed was `1,28,002/-, the amount quoted by Smt.Shanthabai -5- WP No. 201455 of 2023 was `2,52,786/- and by the petitioner being `1,37,786/- and there being no other bidder apart from these two bidders, I am of the considered opinion that the entire process has not been yielded best rates for the RTC inasmuch as Smt.Shanthabai and Sri Shivakumar being related and Smt.Shanthabai being blacklisted. Virtually, there is only one single bid which is received which cannot be considered and as such the respondent No.3 has rightly cancelled the tender and directed the issuance of fresh tender. I do not find any infirmity with the said order. As such, the petition stands dismissed. Liberty however being reserved to the petitioner to participate in any fresh tender process.
9. Sri Deepak V.Barad, learned counsel is permitted to file his Vakalath.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40