Karnataka High Court
K Narayana Bhat vs Mangalore Electric Supply on 20 January, 2014
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
: PRESENT :
HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT APPEAL Nos. 3358-62 / 2013 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN
1. K.NARAYANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA BHAT KANGANAR,
PROPRIETOR: MUNNA ELECTRICALS
MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, D.K. 574 201.
2. M. SOORYANATHA ALVA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE SANKAYYA ALVA,
PROP: PADMA TRADERS, DARBE,
PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201.
3. S. SUNDER SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O CHENNAPPA SHETTY,
PROP: RAJESH ELECTRICALS
RAJDHANI TOWERS, UPPINANGADY,
PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201.
4. H. SUNDARA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O BELLIYAPPA GOWDA,
PROP: JYOTHI ELECTICALS, VENKATARAMANA
PRASAD BLDG, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201.
5. VISHWANATHA GOWDA B
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O SHESHAPPA GOWDA,
PROP: VISHWAPRAKASH ELECTRICALS,
S.M COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD,
: 2 :
PUTTUR,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201.
... APPELLANTS
( BY SRI M J ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S M J ALVA & CO. )
AND
1. MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE OFFICE, PARADIGM PLAZA,
AB SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (TECH)
MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE, PARADIGM PLAZA,
A B SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575 001.
... RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI N KRISHNANANDA GUPTA, ADVOCATE
FOR C/R-1 & R-2. )
WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 6454-6459/2013 (GM-TEN)
DATED 20/3/2013.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 6454-59/2013 dated 20.3.2013 is assailed in these : 3 : appeals. Respondent No.2 issued a tender notification dated 5.1.2013. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 had issued a Corrigendum on 25.1.2013. The grievance of the appellants is that, on account of the Corrigendum issued to the tender notification, their quotations would not be considered. Therefore, they challenged the Corrigendum at Annexure-C. Learned Single Judge, having regard to the order dated 7.2.2013 of this court passed in Writ Petition Nos. 6638-47/2013, filed by one of the tenderers, and keeping in mind Rule 14 of the Karnataka Transperency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 ('the Rules' for short), dismissed the Writ Petitions. That order is assailed in these appeals.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for Caveator Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.
3. It was brought to our notice that having regard to Rule 27 of the Rules, it was not permissible for the tender notifying authority to issue a corrigendum, modifying the conditions of tender notification. It was : 4 : also stated that the tender document is defined in clause
(d) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Transperency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and, in the instant case, the corrigendum could not have been made to the tender document. Such a contention was earlier rejected by this court in Writ Petition Nos. 6638-47/2013 in respect of the very same tender. That apart, on a reading of Rule 14 of the Rules, it becomes clear that, at any time after issuance of tender document and before opening of the tenders, the tender inviting authority may make any change or modification or amendment to the tender document and such modification has to be intimated. Therefore, the tender inviting authority is empowered to make any clarification or modification to the tender document.
4. In the instant case, a two cover tender was invited by the respondents viz., having technical qualification and financial qualification. The corrigendum at Annexure-C is with regard to both the technical requirement as well as financial requirement, which is in line with what is stated in Rule 14 of the Rules. : 5 : Therefore, learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the Writ Petitions as the amendment or modification to the tender document was in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules.
5. We, therefore, find no merit in these Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed, along with the application made therein.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE ckc/-