KRISHNE GOWDA ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. KRISHNE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.07.2012 impugned at Annexure -M. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to respondents No. 2 to 5 to refund the securities forfeited under the impugned order dated 23.07.2012. The petitioner is a Class -I contractor and in that regard had responded to the short term tender invited by the second respondent through E -procurement for construction of the Flower Auction Complex at Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District, vide notification dated 07.07.2011. The petitioner was selected for award of the said work after negotiations. The final rate quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 2,08,23,875/ - as against the estimated cost of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ -. In the method of calculation of the amount which was estimated for the work to be performed and the rates quoted, the unbalanced proposition if any with regard to the rates was required to be calculated. In that regard, there were certain issues between the petitioner and the second respondent. Ultimately by the order dated 23.07.2012 (Annexure -M), the work in favour of the petitioner was cancelled at their risk and costs so as to forfeit their securities. It is in that context, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 at the first instance filed a detailed objection statement seeking to justify their action by contending that the amount quoted by the petitioner is to be classified as unbalanced and therefore, to the extent as quoted, the securities are to be furnished. During the pendency of the instant petition, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a detailed reference to the manner in which the unbalanced amount is to be calculated and the security that is to be provided which is in vogue and further since it was seriously disputed that in the instant facts, the calculation made is based on certain estimates which is contrary to the terms, Respondent No. 7 who is in -charge of similar contracts in the State was directed to file an affidavit before this Court explaining the correct method of calculation. Accordingly, the affidavit dated 13.08.2013 along with enclosures is filed before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would however contend that the security would not be for the entire 75% but only for the difference of the rate which is lesser than 75% which is fixed. In any event, that aspect of the matter need not be gone into in detail, but what is necessary to be noticed is that from the affidavit filed by respondent No. 6, it would be clear that respondent No. 2 had not properly assessed the situation while calling additional securities in the manner as had been done in the instant facts of the case. If these aspects of the matter are kept in view, in my opinion, the clarification as made by respondent No. 6 by way of affidavit before this Court would have to be taken note to the extent that the petitioner instead of succumbing to the demand made by respondent No. 2 to furnish securities in the manner as had been sought, was seeking to point out that an error has been committed by respondent No. 2 and the security as sought for cannot be furnished. If in this background, the impugned order dated 23.07.2012 is taken into consideration, it would indicate that there were negotiations between the petitioner and the respondents and ultimately since the petitioner had not furnished the securities in the manner as desired by respondent No. 2, the decision was taken to cancel the work in favour of the petitioner and to forfeit their securities.