IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT EHARWAD .
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2098: Q
BI$f<'€;)i~3l§}
was HOWBLE MR. .Jus %1.f1<;: E N,_.1{'(I£wi4§g,'R'V"'~~ 4
Writ Petition No. 3 1338 £:.<,f 326.3633 €C3:-;;"-';*I_5:'1~i}"'
Between;
{Tlanara Detective 3:. Sequxity Ag:%1:_1¢f;_ --.,
By its Proprietor A.I~i. _A , L
Branch (mice: Bellary ~ 3 _ ,
Represented by its Power of" '
Attorney Ho2der*- V
D. Kcshappa; . .'
3/0 Thimmappa % % ..
Aged aboui , '
(300: Business" 7;.
I?/0 VV ...I3'et.ifi0ner
V. ffiy Sri Sfifesh 9. Hudcdagaddi, Advocate)
1 'I'?l::& "Stats of¥{aI'z1ataka
" Ré"ptd., by its Secretary is
n , Health 85 Family Welfarc:
Department (Medical Elducation)
' M s Bufléing
Bangalore
'2 M] s. Shahhira Security Services
aa Gang Coolies =1 /'
Represented 'by its I5'ropziet1*ix
M/S Sabeera Segum " '
Bellary RE:s__p0.1:dc:;1tsT~ '
(By Sri K. 13. Adhyapégk, ft'): 4'
Sri V, R. fiatar, Ativosfratg fétsr R'2.}_ '~ , «. V' '
This Writ Petition is filcd'un'd,er A1'1:iclés" 226::a1:1d 227 of
tha Constituflon of india, quash..t1}€:VAVV0Itier dated
14-10-2008 gassed by' 'F§esp»<3nde1itr~1 Appeal Na. HFW 34
KVM 2008 vicic AI1116X1ii"?f'»?C3_. j AA "
This Writ Pefitia1J.~ce._v1fing'~0n for" hearing this
day, the Court *11§a(Z3.¢ the fQ]lu<':W'm,g:."
The' pe:;t.ic§n.-Egg: V§1ag 'c1§auenged in this writ petition the
order passed by ti1eAapf;éilate authority under Section 16 of
iiagffiataka Tfatisparency in P11¥3}:£c Pmcummetnt Act, 1999
' c§¥2iz:2:;11i;:£g conuact issued to the petitioner herein.
2. Z hv x'I"hr:: petiijoncr is a labour conmactar who suppiies
i3¥:;0_;zrei;s to. vaxicrus department in the Government of
Vijayanagar Medica} Science Institute, Beiiary,
for tcI3.ders on {}'?.(}2.2{)08 fer supply of contract
labourers £0 Mefiical Colicge Hospital, is/iedicai Cofieg-:23,
h'/.
Qisttict Hospital and 'T.B. Hoispiizal at Bellary
of hospital and cleaning ané WV L.
Annexure-A. The pefifioner submiiféd' Ht31eb i
price of Rs.398:.40 gas. for the (of:
Meeiical College and 14ospi£ai;' "~~'szf12~..«1$; for the?
supply of sanitary 1abQuI'£3'§~"'ixL,;.._NIe(:ii£§&i"-AC0£16gE':. The
tender accepting comnfiitiét' applicafions of all
tendcrers :caa(1c: 'i;:_1 ~::1V9r;Vfit'if'1<':a*;io11 and the
ctontract as per Am1exu:re--D.
The " seccxnd respondent by
pmferijng._ap1§eflatc authority under the Act.
The apfielfim hearing both the parties has
pas§§¢€i $116 éliflfir setting asids the contract granted
” int the petitioner. Aggrjgved by the same, the
this (301111;
A. ” A1″ The learned (3ozm.sel tbr the _petit:io:t2er assailing
ti3.<:: éinpugned order contends that as the peiriticmar was the:
lgiwest bidder, his tender was acceptsd, which. is iegal and
valid and the appellate authznrity comniittezsi serious error in
K/%
setfing aside the same. it was further contended that even if it
is to be beid that the d€d1iCtiO}]. of income tax was _4n.(}_t.e£:n*eet,
even then, the price quoteé by the petitioner
therefore the appelfiate authority shoulé. no_t~i1a§{e~.$et.:é1sideVL: 'me'
contxaet granteé to the petitioner.
4. Per conga, the Iea;I1ed ‘C»($i1:1se1
respendent supported the o1:cierTV V. i
S. The p£:¥:itiQner’s bid is – at Vg%3I1B.6XuTC–B.
The fixice ‘q1}4.{3’ “‘LV’-;’,;i§;-_» §<€s.I§3981.4i) ps. inclusive of
Centra1«S~e:'vice .'i;z.eeme tax to be deducted at source.
'¥'he;jp%ice quo"t<:.c: b'y the second respondent is Rs.3';~3'81.ESE5 ps.
'V is the letter accepfing the tender ofthe petitioner.
tfiercéin that the rates quoted by the petitioners in
tef1derV§s'Ru$~iC§981.40 ps. and it is aocepteé tbr Rs.39:5.34 ps.
per and therefaze the contracst was awaxfieé. It is a
vVery «.–S%3"ange Way of accepting the tender by the authorities. It
open to the '§}'ender Accepting Authcrrities after opening of
the tender to call all the parties for a private negofiations and
/'
\x/
, 5 _
thereafter increase or rcducc the price quoted by the
tcndcrcrs' Without umicrtakixig the said. exercise, unilatcraiiy
the 'Fe1:1dcr Accepting Authority cannct accept the tev£ic'£c.f»for a
lcsscr price giving the benefit of not deducting
at Sonics. Attempt is madc to makff?
nctsvithstanding thc price quoted i
is awanied to the tenderer foif la
the tcrms of the tender nci:ificT;:-futon
gaming aiiything ii) tl*::£:”‘»’:t§I’gai;1″i;” ti§iS”apj.imach the
appellate authority has
6. _iT’11é,_-vtcjaniiicr authority cannot uziiiatclaiiy
alter thei’t.§:I’m_s ‘€cfidci’«fior can cxtenci the benefit to the
~, of ti1é:i:1j c}*1c>%’ice:”‘.;1c% can reduce er incxcase the price
an opportunity to all the applicants
“ii’i$§t1i<5.I_'f§li1i'£€3d the tcnficxs in pursuance of the
I1'(}ifi.fi'3.i.'4:l'.f-.it1'v<_"}J:1'i.' Even if income tax to be paid is not deducted,
'V._€V€£1 tiicfii, the pct':i'ti0nt:r's oflcr woulé be the iowcst. That by
K
i'i€sciIifjis not a sufficient ground to approve the action of the
tcndcr accepting authority. The tcndcr accepting authority
1%..
_ 5 –
has contxavened the mandatory yravisions of the Act and has
discrimmattzzfi ether terxzdsrers. ‘I’b.<:1ve.f-zztre, the apgeiiate
aL:thrity was justified in setting aside the said acceptance of
contxact and dixtécting calling of fresh tenders
the process of finalising fhfi tcndtrs by 315*”-. c.> f
2088. The impugned axder is ktga}-‘3Lf1d– Cézfi V’
fez” intttrference. Accordingly, A’
sali.
Mae
lisp! –