ZAKINL BIOTECH PVT LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for the following reliefs by filling this writ petition.

(2.) SRI Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, as per Clause 3.5 of the Project Information Memorandum (i.e., PIM), the extent available for development was only 500 acres in Mallasandra Kaval Farm; that as per Clauses 1.2.6, 1.2.7; 2.2.3; and 2.2.4 of Request For Proposal (i.e., RFP), the financial bid should consist only of annual payment, to be paid to the respondent No.3 for development of horticultural farms at 18 locations notified; that the petitioner bid by quoting the amount relating to annual payment for the entire area of 500 acres; that after opening of the financial bid on 20th July 2010 by respondent No.3, it was found that the amount was bid on per acre basis by few of the bidders including respondent No.2 and that respondent No.3 has sought for an undertaking on a plain sheet of paper to state that their respective bids were per acre basis as against the annual payment for the entire area; that the petitioner has bid as per the provisions of RFP and has bid for a total amount of Rs. 74,52,00,000/- for 500 acres of Mallasandra Kaval Farm as annual payment; that the petitioner issued a letter to the 1 st respondent on 22.7.2010 regarding irregularities committed by the respondent No.3 in seeking for clarification in the form of an undertaking after the financial bids were opened and requested respondent No.l to look into the serious deviations; that respondent No.l replied to the petitioner's aforementioned letter on 24.7.2010 stating that Clause 6.2(b) of RFP empowers them to seek clarification and additional information from the bidders at any point of time; that such an explanation of respondent No. 1 as found in the reply is erroneous, inasmuch as, the respondent No.l has misinterpreted Clause 6.2(b) of RFP; that in the pre-bid meeting dated 30.4.2010 (vide Annexure-'H') a query was specifically asked at SI. No. 15 as to whether "under Schedule- 5, the financial bid to be quoted for one acre on the notified area of the farm?"; that the response of the respondent No.3 was "No. The financial bid is the annual payment to be paid for the entire area of the farm in accordance with Schedule-5 of PDIA (i.e., Project Development and Implementation Agreement)"; and that in view of the above, the invitation extended to 2nd respondent and others for negotiations discarding the petitioner's claim is illegal and the same is against the law.

(3.) SRI Raghavendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable for the present, inasmuch as, the same is pre-mature; that the entire tender process is not complete, inasmuch as, the matter is still at the level of the State Government for taking decision in the matter; that merely because respondent No.2 is a preferred bidder, it cannot be said that the process is complete; that the petitioner can have recourse to filing of statutory appeal after completion of the entire process under Section 16 of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999; that the bid of the petitioner should be treated as non-responsive bid, inasmuch as, the petitioner himself has contended before this Court that he has bid for 500 acres and not for 621.2 acres; that the Power Point Presentation of the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner very much understood that the area notified was 621.2 acres and not for 500 acres and has consequently bid for 621.2 acres; that neither the petitioner nor anybody raised any objection on 20th July 2010 i.e., at the time of authority seeking clarification from the bidders to verify as to whether the amount quoted is on per acre basis or for the entire area; that the clarification was sought for by the 3rd respondent prior to opening of the bids; that the petitioner chose to object for the action of the 3rd respondent seeking clarification from the bidders only on 22.7.2010 i.e., after two days after seeking clarification.