Karnataka High Court
M/S. Karnataka State Certified Seed ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 1507 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1507 OF 2017 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CERTIFIED
SEED PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION (R),
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 118/1C, 34 & 39,
M.C. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
B.T. LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
DR. S. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O. S. MAHESHWARAPPA.
2. M/S. AGRO SEEDS CORPORATION
PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR,
DR. S. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
signed by
PANKAJA S S/O. S. MAHESHWARAPPA,
Location: NO.118/C, 34 & 39,
HIGH
COURT OF M.C. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
KARNATAKA B.T. LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
3. M/S. PANCHAMI SEEDS CORPORATION
REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PARTNER,
SRI. S.K. SHAMBHULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SHIVAPPA,
NO.110/104C, BEHIND LIC OFFICE,
K.R. ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
-2-
WP No. 1507 of 2017
4. M/S. PRAGATHI SEEDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
REPTD., BY PROPRIETOR,
SRI. NAGARAJ S.C.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. S. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
NO.619, M.C. LAYOUT,
NEAR BETHURU HALLA BRIDGE,
JAGALURU ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
5. M/S. SHEKAR AGRO INDUSTRIES
REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PARTNER,
SRI. M.K. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O. M.K. SHIVALINGAPPA,
NO.2, GODOWN OLD DC OFFICE,
WHOLESALE VEGETABLE MARKET,
DAVANAGERE-577 002.
6. M/S. RENUKA AGRO TRADERS
PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
REPTD. BY PROPRIETOR,
SRI. K.H. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. K. HANUMANTHAPPA,
NO.337/16-A5-A6,
OPP. FIRE BRIGADE OFFICE,
P.B. ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
-3-
WP No. 1507 of 2017
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
SESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
SESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TOT HE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS WRIT
PETITIONS FROM R-1 TO 3 QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED:18.8.2016 PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are calling in question the order passed by the Secretary to the Government by which it has refused to issue a direction under Section 15 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short, referred to as "the Act").
-4-WP No. 1507 of 2017
2. The 1st petitioner is a registered association of Certified Seeds Producers dealing with certified seeds. Petitioners 2 to 6 are persons who have participated in the tender.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the imposition of condition to pay 4% RSK Commission in the tender notification is illegal since that commission is waived in respect of public sector agencies.
4. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the 1st petitioner cannot maintain a petition on behalf of all the participants or the prospective participants to the tender. Secondly, petitioners 2 to 6 having participated in the tender, they cannot, thereafter, challenge a condition imposed in the tender.
5. In that view of the matter, petitioners would have no right to insist that the State Government should issue a direction under Section 15 of the Act as per their desire.
6. Section 15 of the Act is a power conferred on the State to issue directions to the procurement entity or the authorities in order to secure and maintain transparency at any stage of the process of procurement. Such a power conferred under Section 15 of the Act cannot be utilised by the petitioners to contend -5- WP No. 1507 of 2017 that the Government should issue a direction to do away with the tender condition.
7. I am, therefore, of the view that the petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57