K NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED
LAWS(KAR)-2018-8-266
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on August 09,2018

K NAGARAJU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Aravind Kumar, J. - (1.)Heard Sri. B. S. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 and Sri. T. P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the records.
(2.)For carrying out various civil works at Yeligehundi Village within the area of Mysuru Urban Development Authority, a tender came to be invited and published on 30.03.2016 (Annexure-A). Petitioner offered his bid and there was one more bid submitted by one Sri. N. Srikanta. Since tender in question was two cover bids, namely, technical bid and financial bid, technical bids were opened at the first instance and Tender Inviting Authority found that technical bid offered by Sri. L. Srikanta does not meet the eligibility criteria and accordingly rejected the technical bid. Thus, petitioner's bid alone remained in the fray for being considered. On account of extant circulars issued by the appropriate Government disclosing that where the value of the work exceeds Rs.25,00,000/- and less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- it was required to be approved by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The tender inviting authority forwarded the technical bid submitted by the petitioner to 4th respondent with a prayer to grant permission to open the financial bid of the petitioner and approve the same for being issued with the work order, by communication dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure-B). Said proposal came to be examined by the Deputy Commissioner ie., respondent No.4 herein and by communication dated 16.12.2016, rejected the proposal and directed the tender inviting Authority to call for fresh tender process through E-Portal. Said order/communication dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure-H) is under challenge.
(3.)Subsequently, Tender Inviting Authority has invited fresh tender on 02.02.2017 (Annexure-C) which is also sought for quashing. It is the contention of Mr. B. S. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent-authority erred in calling for fresh tender and when there was only one valid bid available, namely, that of the petitioner, Tender Inviting Authority ought to have issued the work order in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.4 could not have directed the Tender Inviting Authority to call for fresh tender under the impugned communication dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure-H) and thereafter fresh tender ought not to have been called for. He would rely upon the various work orders of the earlier years including the one which was issued to the petitioner himself where it was a case of single bid being accepted by the Tender Inviting Authority to buttress his argument that State or the Tender Inviting Authority has no other option in the instant tender except to accept the single valid financial bid submitted by petitioner available.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.