CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Chandragiri Construction Company is seeking a declaration declaring that the acceptances of the tenders of the 4th respondent by the 1st respondent in respect of both Gulbarga and Bellary cities in terms of Annexure-A, a tender notification as illegal and unsustainable. The facts are as under: a tender notification was issued inviting tenders from pre-qualified contractors for execution of works for slum upgradation and development programme (Nirmala Jyothi) in about 9 cities in Karnataka. The cities have been divided into two categories depending on the approximate value of the work estimated. The said 9 cities were divided into category I or II. Annexure-A is a tender document issued by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board (for short, 'the Board' ). The tender notification dated 2-5-2000 in terms of Clause 6 would restrict to one work in each category subject to a maximum of two works. The petitioner was one of the pre-qualified Contractors. The petitioner submitted his tender for the execution of work at Gulbarga and Bellary. Both Gulbarga and bellary fall under Category II. The fourth respondent submitted his tender for the very same city. On opening of the tender, it was noticed that the 4th respondent was the lowest tenderer in respect of the tenders submitted for Gulbarga as well as the lowest tenderer for Bellary. The petitioner was the next lowest tenderer after the 4th respondent in respect of Gulbarga city. According to the petition averments, there was some minor defects in following the procedural requirements and therefore, his case was not considered insofar as Bellary is concerned.

(2.) IT is stated that in respect of 4th respondent tenders for Gulbarga and Bellary, its tender for Gulbarga was 5. 17% over and above the estimated value of the works required to be executed and its tender for bellary was 4. 45% over and above the estimated value of the works required to be executed. Thus, the quota of the 4th respondent was much higher than the estimated value in respect of Gulbarga than in respect of Bellary. Accordingly to the petitioner, though the 4th respondent may have quoted the lowest both in respect of Gulbarga and Bellary, he is eligible for one work in terms of tender condition. According to the petitioner, the grant of two works in Category II, Gulbarga and bellary is arbitrary, unsustainable and illegal.

(3.) NOTICE was issued. Respondents have entered appearance.