KARNATAKA SERVICE Vs. BHARATH ELECTRONICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Association claiming to be registered under the Societies Registration Act is before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the notification at Annexure-A dtd. 14/3/2022 bearing No.03/000014/2022 as illegal and ultravires of the Constitution of India in particular Article 39[b] and for a direction to the respondents to follow the tender process which was existing prior to the tender process as per Annexure-A.

(2.) Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.K.Subba Rao for Sri.L.Muralidhar Peshwa for petitioner and learned Senior counsel Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta for Sri.Ismail M. Musba for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel Sri.K.Subba Rao would submit that petitioner-Association of the Karnataka Service Providers is before this Court challenging the tender notification dtd. 14/3/2022 [Annexure-A] issued by the respondent-Bharat Electronics Limited [for short BEL] by which the respondent-BEL has invited tenders for work of Annual Contract for Management Facilities in BEL factory. The estimated cost of tender is Rs.13,14,48,477.00 and duration of contract period stated therein is two years. It is submitted that petitioner-Association is formed with sole intention of protecting rights and interest of Micro, Small and Medium enterprises who are engaged in providing man power services to private sector undertaking including respondent-BEL. Since the interest of members of the Association are at stake, the Association is before this Court in this writ petition. Learned Senior counsel particularly would submit that by virtue of impugned tender notification, nearly 22 contractors have been affected and their livelihood is snatched. It is his submission that the said 22 contractors were providing facility for more than 30 years by participating in the tender process of respondent-BEL. The work related to inside the factory as well as the estate of BEL which included maintenance, housekeeping, gardening, horticulture etc. It is submitted that respondent-BEL under impugned tender notification consolidated all the works pertaining to the estate and the factory unit and clubbed into one tender, though the work involved was of different types and magnitude. Learned Senior counsel submitted that for example, the housekeeping, electrical, horticultural, maintenance, canteen, civil maintenance etc., which were earlier allotted through different tenders are consolidated under the impugned order which affects the present contractors who are carrying on different types of service. In terms of the impugned tender notification, most of the contractors who are members of the Association are not eligible even to apply for the tender because of the unreasonable financial criteria. It is submitted that the whole purpose of issuing impugned tender notification is to award contract to one single contractor instead of various contractors providing services for various types of works as per the earlier tender notifications.