CIVIL EXPERTS CONSULTANTS AND TESTING CENTRE Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COORDINATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this writ petition is listed for Orders, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner claims to be Civil Experts Consultants and Testing Centre and existing consultancy firm situated at Kalaburagi. In pursuance of E-Procurement Tender dated 31.08.2018 for selection of consultancy for project management, Technical and Architectural Consultancy and Quality Control for all civil works under Micro/Macro Heads for the year 2014-15 to 2018-19 under HKRDB for Kalaburagi District, the petitioner has participated in the tender process and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner entered into Memorandum of Understanding with respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has discharged his services to the satisfaction of the respondents. The services of the petitioner was extended from time to time i.e., from 04.11.2019 to 31.03.2020 and further extended from 01.04.2020 to 30.06.2020 and further extension was made till 31.07.2020. It is also stated that the State Government has issued notification dated 13.07.2020 as per Annexure- C relaxing certain conditions with regard to the civil work on account of Covid-19. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 without issuing notice to the petitioner, by letter dated 31.07.2020 closed the service of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) The respondent No.4 has filed detailed statement of objections. It is stated in the statement of objections that respondent No.4 has invited separate technical and financial bids for appointment of consultant for 5 establishment of Project Support Office for Kalyana Karnataka Regional Development Board through E- procurement Portal of Government of Karnataka on 20.05.2019. Since there was no response from the firms to participate, respondent No.4 had to issue fresh tenders and it was only after fifth call made, one of the firm was awarded work order after the bid was accepted and after detailed evaluation made by the respondent-authorities, Ernst & Young LLP and Idigisys Pvt., Ltd., was declared as successful bidder after due approval by the State Government as per Annexures-R2 and R3. It is further stated in the statement of objections that contractual terms concerning the petitioner was extended only upto 31.07.2020 in terms of Clause 9.11 of the Memorandum of Understanding and thereafter, it was not continued. It is further stated that, after expiry of the extended period on 31.07.2020, a letter was addressed to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit all its pending bills with the required supporting documentation and for compliance as per the notice issued on 17.07.2020 for disbursing payments due if any. Since it is a matter pertaining to contractual terms, the same cannot be decided by exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it was contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.