S.R. GANESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the tender notification dated 17-11-2012 (Annexure-D). On amendment of the petition, the petitioner has also sought to quash the acceptance of the tender by respondents 2 and 3 which was approved on 22-2-2013. Consequently, direction is also sought for issue of fresh tenders, to notify the work as individual piece work instead of the package. The petitioner claims to be a Class-I contractor registered with respondent 2-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The case of the petitioner is that in respect of certain road and bridge work to be carried out by respondent 2, the proposal had been put to the Government and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department has approved the projects of the several works on 10-7-2012 vide Annexure-B to the petition. Subsequent thereto, the tender notification has been issued clubbing the work as a package. It is in that regard, the petitioner has a grievance that as per the approval of the Government at Annexure-B, different items of work has been taken note of and the amount incurred thereto has also been noticed and the approval has been made.

(2.) According to the petitioner, if the work is notified for individual items as approved by the Government, there would be more participation and the competitive bids would be offered, but on the other hand, the present procedure of inviting tenders on package as made by respondent 2 is not only contrary to the approval granted by respondent 1, but is also to avoid certain contractors like the petitioner and to prefer such of those contractors desired by respondent 2 and allegations have been made that respondent 4 has been chosen in that regard. It is also the case of the petitioner that despite such notification and the respondent 4 having participated in the tender process, he has not satisfied the qualification indicated therein and therefore the respondents were not justified.

(3.) The respondent 2 as well as respondent 4 have filed their objection statement. Since, the respondent 2 is undertaking the said work and at whose instance the tender notification has been issued, the objection filed by them would be relevant for the instant purpose. The fact that the Government having approved the work as sought for by the petitioner on 10-7-2012 is not disputed. It is contended that respondent 2 based on such approval has taken into consideration the nature of work that has been approved and the cumulative effect of the said work and accordingly, the Commissioner has approved the calling of the work on package basis. It is in that regard, the notification impugned herein was issued. Thereafter, the process has been completed and the work has also been assigned to respondent 4. It is therefore contended that apart from the procedure being followed by respondent 2, the contention is also that the petitioner cannot assail the same having not participated in the tender process and in any event when such disputed questions are to be decided in the writ petition, this Court should not interfere in such matters. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the said objection statement, once again raising certain contentions with regard to the manner in which the tender was floated and the manner in which the work was assigned to respondent 4.