.....AND:..«.{_ 1'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAEENATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANA«?:§T:OLi§.'I.§v4i'§"
WRIT PETITION No.38037,v"2OIO(6fiQ\--1fN§«. %
BETWEEN:
B.M.Hanumanthe Gowcla
S/o.Mu|iabagaiaiah
Aged 35 years :
R/at.No.152/41, 2"? Mam
Ittamadu, BSK 3'" Stage ._
BangaEore--8S _ '
Proprietor of Srinivasa '
Eiectricavljs _ PETITIONER
(By Sri Genapathy*.VVE§iT.Lat;; "for
Kumar &._Bhat, 'Adv.<;.",} _.'T'
V121». :T'he ceVmnTi.s'S~i.o_ner
£sianVga,i"o.r_e"Development Authority
'T.'Chwod2i'i--ah[;P;oad
KL'.uFT1aTa~P_3;f:k West
Bangai"0ére'--2O
"T'r.e Executive Engineer
* '{E_ie';:tricai)
"Bangalore Development Authority
TU
T.Chowdaiah Road
Kumara Park West 2
Bangai0re--2O .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri I.G.Gachinmath, Adv.,)
This writ petition is fiied under
of the Constitution of India, praying.to-,_quash;;the tertder
notification dated 14.10.2010__*as_. pert’Annexufe-:$,…,_iss.ued .0 >
by R2, etc.
This writ petition ‘icomiragwon0-I’f0ru”ip._re|imi–nary’V hearing
in B~Groub, this day the”‘Cso?L.:.rt.m§aQe”thefcii0wing;–
Pveti.tVioh._e’i* ljtiaxes >sj0i.i:oAh”t«’sfotiiquashing the tender
notification vid’e}2.hiie’xvti}’e.–H; dated 14.10.2010 issued
by the segondxi inviting appiications to
_certe”i’n…_w.ovri< on behaif of the respondent-
;
Ganapathy Bhat, iearned advocate
V”‘}..app.eati”ng for the petitioner submits that the totai
to be carried on is worth about $79 iakhs.
M
However, a condition is imposed as per Clause-2.9.5
of the Instructions to Bidders to the effect thva.t:’-.the_
Contractors who had average annual.’-«
turnover of €500 Crores in at least’ two rfinahc–i’Iai V’
and positive net worth of atVIeast:?__2:’0_iVC)A’
have to apply. According of ‘V
condition is iiiegai sarneis made
with a view to heip has got net
worth of relies upon the
Noi:ifica_ti’ori–i..Vgisésifliéidiiii Government vide
in support of the said
contention. * V
3–..”>Th’3i Dreavrhiailie of the Notification at Anne><ure–
makes it amply ciear that the
said .___N'o.ti.7fication is issued prescribing certain
c.opndit'ions to be used in identified Divisions of PWD
WRD and the Corporations under WRD for
N»
.4-
procurement of works from 1.9.2005 for a period___of
six months initially on an experimental
Therefore, the same may not be applicaiaie ”
BDA. However, the fact remain’sii”ti1«at wi.i|
have to strictly adhere the provisio”ns1’*oi° the’Vi{.a’i~nat’a:i{a.:”‘
Transparency in Pubiic PI”OCLi!’é’t:T.r:1:.(‘-2.fit i
4. Statement of’…,’obj_ectEoven:s’is, flied” by the
respondent– BOA. According’ tt,~.et”- .,Eefs_p.ondents, as
the project inclitidehs bgiigilcimsg,'”own’in.g,:éoperating and
also travi:i’s’fer,;”of iwtiii’:-e En’erg*,i”fiiffizciency System, the
persons who parti~ciep,a’te_”i-nit,i:he bid, must have much
credibiiity, i4″i’ve;_juta’.tEoAii2_,V”°iT enabled technical and
,f’jV’Finaniciiiai:,,,,pa'<:kgrouVn'd"itfor making the project work
i'e–ffec.tVive:i:y..:a'nciefficiently. Having regard to its past
expe–r_ienv§:e,,,it~hAe BDA has imposed the conditions that
Vpersoins applying must have net worth of ?200
,.:Cror'»es5and must had the turnover of ?'S0{) Crores for
M
l5_
two years. According to the respondents, such
conditions are imposed keeping in mind the_4vpV_u-biiicp
interest at large.
5. Sri Gachinmath, learnedT_cou.nsel”.app’ea’ring:onvi’
behalf of the respondentsi’argVuesV”th’at if
who are not having much tuno’v.er–.or t’h’ey:_d’:o not have
much positive net wo,éin,ag %.pre’4s~cpi”iit§:ed, the work of
BDA may at large will
be Put to ‘V -I
settled that in contracts
having commercial.:eE..ei’naVe’nt, some more discretion has
toconcedediyto the authorities, so that they may
‘ enter..i_nto«.contracts with persons, keeping an eye on
the’ii’augE-nenttvation of the revenue. But even in such
matters they have to follow the norms recognised by
A AC:o’u_rts while dealing with public property. It is not
“possible for Courts to question and adjudicate every
,5,
decision taken by an Authority, because many of___the
Government Undertakings which in due coursejha-yge.u”
acquired the monopoiist position in matters’ o.f:”s:a’iie:.i_””i ”
and purchase of products and with” so man_y fve.nt:ures
in hand, they can come outgwithiaa ipliea is
always possible to act like aiviguasi«:jtsdic’i.a:I’.=
while awarding “special
circumstances a discretgioni ‘AcToLn’ceded to the
authorities giving
them Eibertyi. iiisiwtuation for purpose
of taking whom the contract be
awarded a’t’*–w’h’at. If the decisions have
been,._itaӣ<en fide manner aithough not strictiy
'A«t%i'–.e*~–n_orms laid down by the Courts, such
deciisi-onxs 'upheld on the principle that Courts while
'judging constitutionai validity of executive
I {(:i'ecis'ions must grant certain measure of freedom of
f
F3
' V' "Vthe"-peti.ti.ora~er.
‘piay in the joints’ to the executive [see 199-4(6)SCC
651 and 2004(4)SCC 19].
Though this Court has thesecond'”o’p—-i.n_i0’ri;
same will not be imposed on ;’i:ithe”*Tend_er_:”inVit-i.n§1:_:
Authority.
“7. During the coii._r$e of it isflbrought
to the notice of the _C.9ii_rt. :.gth’ev.’Ee’arned advocate
appearing ofithe___..4Vres”po:n’d’ents that three
personVs”h’avte”;stiE)3imitt’e.d’—-.the’i’r”~tenders as on this day,
which competition and the BDA
has not kept Vi’ri.rn–.ind._i’a’i=i:y single person as ailegeci by
the same, no reiief can be granted to
[the pe.ti”ti:oner. Hence, writ petition fails and
57acco’i<dEng|y same is dismissed.
-34
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of
the tender notification, it is open for him to queS._t’i’o.n
the same before the appellate authority, if _
him to do so.
*;U3gEtoa;o
*ck/–