IN THE HIGH counr or KARNATAKA AT BANeALorf;:E»e' DATED THIS THE 27"" DAY or ocToBER,_2:010 :-'--.fj _kf% BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTJZCE MOHA AsHgu«aTAmg§e§jL:&%b§4jp2. L'e wan PETITION No.1%:a4 r:3e5/2010A(c;M4TEr~4) BETWEEN: r " V5 Maregowda S/cxchannamaraiah Aged 54 years _' __ : ~ Proprietor, Janaki '%?ra'vei's Agericy" NO.6, Tefecom . MagadiMain3Road'_. " ' Bangaiore-r?V9""~.,% " PETITIONER (By Sri ' ' AND: 1. Kar.rjeta~ka Wéterehedbevelopment ' ' . Dezgiartment . }<\..,H.£2-_.v Comp"5e__x 'KVa\/ery" B_h'aVa_n_jr. aw" ~Banga£"ore'--.9'j;; " Re-._p.by,ii:s_Secretary/Managing Director The Profzrietor V 'Pe'!:/s.Chethana Travels _ No.2,', Chikbazar Street rnxgear Jyoti Cafe Hotel Opp: Shivajinagar Bus Stand Banga|ore--51 .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Narendra Prasad, HCGP for R1
R2 — served)
This writ petition is fiied underA;%tiicies–‘226.:eund
of the Constitution of Ind.i»a,-i.__praVyE.:§g to:i”q:’,i;asVh the
communication dated 24.3.201’Oi’i»jVs’siJed b’y._i’5′-Vresipiondent
vide Annexure–E by issuing a w.r’i’t’of_:’ceVrt.i.orari,i ‘etcf
This writ petition coming ffor=A._o’r’Aeii~ivrn’inary hearing
in B–Grou p, this.Vd.aiy’v–.the ;;CotJrt’J.:niaVde’the’ ft;-‘iiowing:–
iiii ;’vs’u’t>vrnitted~.3″
their tenders. The tender””of’*.respo’n_den.t= ‘is
accepted and consed’u.ent|_«y’.”‘V_’V’tine}-tender” of the
petitioner is rejected. questioned
the aCceptani:é2″g.i>f 3 the second
respondentfi. V. 3.
3. 1’Sri” {earned counsel appearing
for the petitiohnerV’subrni’t.s” that the contract period as
the t’end~~—-«r’ notification is oniy for one year
to 31.3.2011; but the contract is
awarded of the second respondent for two
.'”~=.__’y”ears E.’e..4,.’3’up to 31.3.2012; that the award of contract
_i’r:–..ffa.v.our of the second respondent is with uiterior
ix/7
-4-
motive in order to help respondent No.2, though
respondent No.2 has quoted higher price than the
petitioner; that the vehicles which were being usedflby.
the petitioner in the earlier years are
respondent No.2 in this year aisomand tha’tv–th.ere::fo~rVe
respondent No.1 is not justified in.,co:_nteindri.n.’g.’tiiaitilthgetfl
vehicles supplied by the petit_i’oner be l
used- E .g it c c
4. Writ petition o’ippmera.rg.i§y< the learned
Governrrierit,rA;dvo:i:a«te',.'.Vg"byit'Filing; the statement of
objections.' of objections, it is
contended that' the tender of the petitioner is not
'-itsV.3CC€'i5£éCi"viii"..éV5€lNV"""'(3f'V his past conduct; that the
i'p«et'it_i.o'rief'awialsia-.e1intrusted with the work of supply of
cars'~-for V_ti'ie1'period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, i.e.,
iastlyear, but service provided by the petitioner
-w’a_s*unsatisfactory; In that regard, seven notices
V’
-5-
were issued to the petitioner; that since the petitioner
did not supply the cars as required, an amo.o’~ntj..»ofvv
?5,500/– was deducted from the payment
in favour of the petitioner.’E–n. if
respondent No.1 submits thatA1″thie__z’petitioner.
imposed fine of 35,000/– for
during the month of.j:4’U.,¢;e fciziausef 17 of
the agreement.__ Becagsye of the
petition e r, –.1;’£./ ~ Apyrog ra rn wa s
adversglfiyyppi regard to the
aforernzentionwedyfavets’a:n”d..pircowirnstances, the tender of
the petitioner vwias
. \’ £51-§”Th”e_;:ondit’ions found in the tender notification
1’cwifesafrI’y…re.y”ea’.ithat the contract period is for one year
i.e.”,~.. up_”to.iA4:3A1.3.2011. But strangeiy, the contract is
iawardeici by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent
if No.2: for a period of two years i.e., up to 31.3.2012.
}~”>
-5-
It is a clear case of illegality, inasmuch as the first
respondent cannot go beyond the termsj’~fanfd.Vv
conditions of the tender notification. Therefore}.5t”hVei'”~i–
contract entrusted in favour of th’e”‘ser:orid
should be restricted to 31.3.20.i:1., is”r_elevan’t.:”to’:”i
note that though responden”t«…V:VVi\io.2this._se.ry.ed”:.v”y§iith’ a
notice, has remainedabsentlfagndfher’-has not filed any
objections.
Be ‘tcoyntract entrusted in
favour”of”thesysecbrid’respon’deint has to be restricted
to 31.3.2011’ specific condition found in
the terider riotifi~c.a–tio’n.”
‘ ..Vrlvoweiv:e’r_.__this Court does not find any ground to
interfere yyitfhvfthe order pertaining to entrustment of
“._,’contrac’t«;_in favour of the second respondent. It is no
true that the rates quoted by the second
V,.._’::mrespondent are on higher side as compared to
it”
petitioner’s rates. But that ground alone cannot come
to the aid of the petitioner, inasmuch as the pet–%t’i’o.’n~eyr’*.._’
had failed to perform his duties entrusted
year. In order to satisfy itself, th’e'”C’ou_rt._di,reAcVtf;d: the
iearned Government to secure the’.__récVords.ofAthas
respondent and the learned C3″o..\:/fiernment_V_Ad§;=oVc’a¥te”Vhas
submitted the records-%.. first
respondent. Thesaid the notices
were issued respondent
on various g f ii;y4}%f6.2009, 5.6.2009,
2.7.2009, L 28.7.2009 and
31.7.2007;’–_:All_ these were clearly reveal that
_.__the pégtivtiioner ha–s:VV0_Qtsuppiied cars as required under
V7__thVé’*t.end_er.’agreement. The records also reveal that
an’.’a’rno.u’n’t’.j..’¢’fVV’§’5,5O0/~ was deducted by the first
‘V.r’espo’nde’r)tvout of the amounts to which the petitioner
A “«waVsi”eA_ntitled to in respect of the last year’s contract,
. cieariy means that the first respondent was not
i/3
satisfied with the performance of the petitioner in the
East year. Ciause 28 of the tender notifieati_On”*.._
provides that the first respondent has a right«.,’:eitheVr:.a:’to ‘
accept or to reject the tender. Since the’ p’etitio’r:’erV:d–iLr1
not perform as the agreement ente’red~.,iAnto binithe
2009-10, this Court does not erro’r.i’n
respondent in rejectin;::i:’~the Vofipthe ‘pet’itioner.
Accordingly, the Vwork of the
second respon_de’:fi,t1″Vfof’–.Athe’: 1.4.2010 to
31.11.2011 is yyith. Hence, the
foliowingv . ‘
a)’ T of–..’:,co’htract with which
_ — .. _ the second ‘respondent is entrusted,
‘ ls~..restriCte=ti’up to 31.3.2011.
b.):”‘i?’resi’1.?’notification will have to be
V ~’S§é?.:’ed by the first respondent
0 ~~ vhcalling for tenders for supplying of
cars, for the period from 1.4.2011.
%;–~”\
mg.
C) The order of the first respondent
relating to entrustrnent of work in
favour of the second respondent ugaflj
to 31.32011 is not interfered witié,__:’