Karnataka High Court
Sri K Tirupati Reddy vs The Managing Director Karnataka ... on 1 August, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
In THE HIGH COURT or KAR.NA'l'AK.A A1'
fiat:-,d this the 15* day ofiflngazst,
BEFORE X J 5
THE Horrnw MR.' gfijsrxcfi H ¥
Writ Pefition 39. 89é!3'ofg_<}(}8_.[GM;3I'E£fl~'
BETWEEN:
SIiKTi111patiRc;1tiy__ I _ %
S/okvenkataeubfga-Redéiyi _
Aged 43 yttan-'.~ 4' " f __ .
Om: Clontmtftor '
R/G N0. 1<3?s1,%_;";*h"'M:;i1rx:.:;;?__ ,
éudicial Lajyfout " v. 7'; '
G K V K Pas: '
Bailgaltz-re - 5539 065 . V ...Petifioner
{By SI;.i"RB--«fiashpande, Advocate)
1 csgemmggiggnmmr
Karnataicay fiiravari Nigama Ltd. ,
g C031'-$5 Building
Afiangalqcte ---- 560 001
Théfilxecufivc Engjnmr
Aliaxérzataka Niravari Nigama Ltd.,
MBC Division» 1
' u 'Gaddanagtzare Camp
Bagaikoir 1 ' . . Respondents
»»/ (By Sri Dayaznanda S Pafii, Advocate, for E31 "
This Writ Petition is filed und¢rAAA_ri:ic1e_3.Vé2"6i 227 =-.¢n*" . the Constitution of India. praying to 'quash u Notification issued by mapondetitl Nc$_;':2~ ' dated' _.23--54QOC8, GRBCKM 35 Earth Work and (7.12). Works, Tendesr. ANoI;ifi¢atio1i'~o at A1:1;oex1u*e--A. " . °_ This Writ Pcfition Qo1ning___L:on:_f-:1 oxfiero day, the Court made the foliowiugi' " L. ' R oo,».i..[>n:> on; ;R. AA;
The pCfi1ib1g1€§r»»:.haE;:'--p1§IéiT€;$§.:fl}:iS"V:¥1'it Petition sceldng quashing of ::t:1;j;;g§'o'.t%;§;i;vc:ioerV";g1¢$tification, pubiiahed by the Kariuatalfio fLim1'tcd, the respondents in this case. " 4' he toxggicr is a short term percentage tcndor "__Vn<;yi3'fioaiionA..M vaiue. of the tender notificafion is Rs.1 14 oni5:ovo%o1Q~iodg§ys is stipulateti for submitting the bids from V . the détc .pu'i;]icatio31 of the said notification. The pcfifionezr u the said notification on the short gound of not with Rule 17 of the Karnataka. Transpaxtncy in VT Pmcummezlts Rules, 2000 in as much as against 30 " " days m.inimun1 time whioh should have been prcscribad, as only 10 days is prescribed, it is liable to be quashed. V
3. Respondents have entered appearancx: and _.th_t§y.4'h;3vc flied a cictailcd eeumr poinfing out the €.'><:r_Ja'z§:i«.1.'1'<':A't"V.'.1i;:11f.:A petiitiencr in not only not pcxttbrming t1;g:>work'e11t:'fiti;3t,éd: " " 2 and delaying not only the W"OI'k,:'. cv¥:n . Therefore, it was contended that-._,thc iimgduct of > disantifics hm' from ma:i.nfamm' ' g Writ f5éfiiic:fi.
4. I have heard the parties'
3. Even if the c¢.m1g;:: 'discntiflcs from " is no reason for the mspendénté in land. Rule 17 of the Rules reads as unde1jA:~v. -_ A « for submission af j {1} Tender Inviting Authority shat! adequate time is provfded for the of tenders (Hui ntinirmnn time fa affmiied between date 9f gimbliorztion of the Nofim A' I L"I.m:ii¥'ng Tenders in the relevant tender Bulieiin the A' sag: datefor subrnrhsion of tenders. ms mirtinmm perioci shali be a.sfo1Iows:-
{a} For tender up to rupees two Grams in value, thirty days, and
(b) For tenders in excess of rupees mares in value (thirty days}. ' ' ' V (2) Any reduction in tizg 'time .s:r;:;°:::ii:;£¢ét:.: ~ _ under sub-rule (1) haa 10 be spéérrficfifilfy V X by an authority superior to tfie__ V' Auihorityfar reasons in The afczaresaid pmvision presc;f.i15t:s_ a._ tiznc for submission of tenciers. t¢ILde:§jsvv.1ipVLj$s;}"§§s. Two Cmms in Value 39 days 11$. th¢ the date of pubi1'cafiofl"T'affi " iénziei in the relevant tender bulletin and the 'iaséfim,4fmfis;::bmiss1on of tenders. The word used is fi1au't i:£:1:2_.d c3_f S authority shall ensure that . adeqvgéutev i§1:1f.1e .p;7Qv}dCd. Themfom, it is mandatory.
3,/_j>Hn;Wevg:1*,., '3u'bT- i*:al_¢ (2) provides for reduction of the time .;'wd£i§i*V .?.ub-nfle (1). Before. the tender inviting V -- auf}1§:;iéty"'--i;§1V1.i1}:c3 the said provision stipulating a pexzied iess u §;1an; 3§7haVt"f.s pmscxzibeei under sulrrulc (1) such an action has sificcifically autixcrxtizcti by an authczrjty zsuperior to the VT 'écnéier ixxvziting authority for 18330113 to be reoozvded in wxtifing.
" " 'It is only on such fuifillmcnt of the {rendition the penod' R/Y sfiptflatgd under sub-rule (1) cxnuld be reduced. case as against 39 days only 10 days time: is Vii:
net. in disputca the reasons for 1Bduc£:ii;fi"df HI.'i€v)'V?,".
recorded in Writing and superior au'£Ai:iQfii}{A.has the tender invifing authority :;;3...%};{:*;i;». 1eigara.%...Tfrhé;§ a525r§, the '' notificafion is c0n11'a1yvtc>x 1aW ."i3'ab1a fiD"'be" quashed. Hence. I 13333 the. fD}I0\fi?3'11uéf)1:€iBI"'.2:i3"
(cg Writ P;3:i:£§;;};'is dfjomeéi. "
(b) n§2;;:;Q¢ga*m xgfiéreby quashed.
(C) £;z'be:2r.£_yx respondents to issue a 4' Jsacmrciance with the 5 'afqres-fizdvpfofiisfén proceed with the tender " pffimés, 5d/-.% Iudgé