iN THE) H§GH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH A'? DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 38*" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 200$-3
8E3F()REC
THE) H()N'IE3LE iV1R.JUSTICE H.B1LLA;5--PA'A "' '
WP. No.{5E3924/2009 _ric3M1--1TE1\s§"ER;:'_';v.
Between:
Yuvaraj
S/0 Shankrappa Morabad L} .
28 yrs, CIa.ss~Hi PWD Cc'mtmc£i:1f
r/a Kundgoi, KL:.ndg{)'I " " "
Dhaxfwad District. _ .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. F V Patil, Ac.'iv_}-- V
1 , The SL_atc-of Kégrnfiaka
Rep by it*;E="~_SCC1'"."2t'c1.I'_\/1'
' i."{Irb'»3{1 DCV'C§i'}'ii)ffiCfl1Z A'ut:1"10rity
_ _ M..S3E3~L1i1di11g
V' -- "Ba1*1g:atid;fe~§5() O01
V'_3'.}"1'e" 'j-:03}. Comm i s.~;si(>n <21'
<.Dh;:£rwaci District
" V Dharwad
" Pattama P':-.iI"1(.i}"i2.i}="£{i'{'
Kumigol, Kzmbi, Adv for R-3) '
This WP is fiied under Ai"tici'es 22e1--a§'1:2,2?..::
Constitution oi' Enciia, praying quash t_1'iei'itnpugi.1eci--v«
tender notification dated 1€>v1{}}2OQ9 ij.ssue'd_ by 'ti:.e_ Bfd.
respondent herein xride Annexurc¥'D. '
This WP coming on ftiifiiitfgliminatjy ‘hen’r:in”gvVthiss:ciay, it
the Court made the f’oliowing:’?=._. ‘
2
In this writ petition i;z;’:ie}’Ai:iii:¢’1i$}:j_~.225 85 227 of the
Constitution»of’«.Eii’«;ii;.i,¥_the petitio:iieii*’h_aisfea11ed in question,
the ‘[.Vfi’~?a’3¢d.e=’._i”:x’t’§_Ci1;ii”i{;:&tIi017]:’d_e1I.CCi””‘1~€79:iU-2009, issued by the
thirdvivre spon int’,-~ ifiicie 4i’\’ifiV1::’E’2{tJ.r€v D.
petitioti.¢’i”s.i.:s’i’ 21 registered C1ass~III contractor.
SeCret23nj*”=t.c;__t}ie Urbain Deveioprnent Authority has
.A iaé –<:ai'reu1ar dated 28-79009. in the said circular,
z't{géii~<.iiiig the aid fixed for the Local body, the
m'i'nim.urn*':imouiit. for each work and the minimum and
V Aimaxirnum value of tender package is mentioned. If the aid
i'g_Vfi:»;e<":i for the Lc:-at body is Rs.3O Crores, the minimum
.–7nm0unt for each work. is i€s.1O iakhs and the minimum
L/
Contractors who ea 11 participate in the tender. F urther, it
is stated, as per .!\1’mexurewR1, the petitioner is not’e.1:igible
to participate in the tender. It is, th’eref0i’b\-._ ”
I’€SpOnd€Hf§XpI’El}'(?(i for ciis1″mssa]__o.t.the W’.i.”1t pets;-tron.
L/
5. The learziezi counsel foiflthe1’_’pctitione’r_conteiided..
that the tender 1ioti1’ica.ti()’i’i_ “is arbitrary. arid v._io’1ati:.fe of *
Article 14 of the Cc)1’1sLi{ut_i_oiii’z..V_oixIr:dia’~ar1dVvialso the
guidelines.
6. As against thAi.s,w-the Eca_Ar11ed.’Gc>A{r’e,rriment Advocate
submitted ” ::_: been issued as
per the Vissued by the State
P’ not Chief Minister’s Small
and ViiMeidiL’:i’n’ at”–Ce”:’e}opment Project. She also
submitted u”i.ii_;iit=H=’ia.: pctitiomri’ being Class III Contractor
c’an{no.,t~aparticipaIeiiiiiaiii the tender. Further, she submitted
“f;i’1_&ii.–.if’i.$iotiifgfi the Cias:~«;–I C<)£}tl"£-1CtOI"S who can participate
ii'n__ithe :'.~3h:: thc1~e£.'<..m::, submitted that impugned
notifi~catiori docs i'1-1}': caii for i:1tc;'*feren<:e.
7. I have cg-::*c:§”Lz}1_y <:cm:~;itiered the submissions made
by learned crounscri {or the ;':sz.u"tic:~;.
L/x'
8. The point that arises for my consideration is,
whether the iIT1}31,:g1}CCi tt:.2.ider notification calls for
interference?
9. It is reievemt to note, the petitioner is a
Contractor. The p’c>titione:’ contends that
violative of A1’11’1€XL1I’C~i3 i.e., guidelines and’t1’1–erefoi*e,”the.
tender notii”icatio.n is bad. There ;i’.’.4:–nt1O’*–.II1€.I’Vit
contention, for the l”C£].S()1}, [4.’i’]I1.CXuFé*.D “is issuiedé’ based on
Annexure–R1 and not F\rmexL1r’es_Bi. _ A:1ne2:L;re¥D issued
as per the eircuiar dated E:.=–‘7–f2009vé}x§s%$§§ by the State
Finance Coinmissicn ties,”.5′.11t1e:f;LJ.1*e~si’Qi~~._.1..it is only the
C1ass~»I Coh”:5fa_ctc>’;r;s wht~2_t’::’1_:1~ participate in the tender.
The 1;5etitione’r._:i.t§i:1;i”—._’t.i”«’L:}ass–HI Contractor cannot
participate ‘ii”1_:iti’1(,’. .v.i(‘i”£.'{‘-il’,?l’T except item No.6. Therefore, the
. petitioiner ‘eginnot iitévc any gI’iCV£]HCC.
_ s. :8’.._’V’iih4t?ti$3 no mt.-%2’it in this writ petition and hence it
is_1iab1e_ :osct’s1ssa1sss<;t, 3'-'ict:t)rdingiy, it is dismissed.
Sfi/s
JUDGE