M.H. SHIVANANDAPPA GOWDA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA AND THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING that a short question arises for consideration, at the first instance itself, this Court was of the view that on securing instructions from the learned counsel for the respondents appropriate orders could be made. In that regard, a perusal of the petition papers would indicate that the petitioner is seeking quashing of the tender notification dated 25.10.2013 as far as it relates to fixing the last date as 15.11.2013. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to extend the last date for receipt of the tender. The petitioner who claims to be a Class -I Contractor and having carried contract work for more than twenty years intended to respond to the tender notification dated 25.10.2013. The last date fixed was 15.11.2013 upto 4 p.m. While uploading the tender documents, the petitioner was also required to upload the details of the EMD in respect of the tender. While this was so, the last date which had been fixed i.e., 15.11.2013 was declared as a holiday in view of there being certain change relating to observing Moharam. It is in that regard, the petitioner contends that he could not uphold the documents and a representation dated 16.11.2013 was made by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore contends that in view of the Holiday being declared and since in any event, the Negotiable Instruments Act would apply, the petitioner should have had the opportunity of uploading the documents on the next date.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on instructions would submit that the Procurement Portal is that of the Government of Karnataka and as per the date and schedule fixed, the Portal would accept the bids if submitted. It is his case that even though 15.11.2013 had been declared as a Holiday, the Procurement being by e -mode, uploading was possible even on that date. No doubt, on this aspect of the matter, the respondents though were required to file a detailed objection statement, prima facie it is seen that the petitioner himself has not produced any documents to show that in fact the petitioner had made an attempt on 15.11.2013 to upload the documents and on the same being rejected, in view of the said date being declared as a Holiday, he had again made an attempt to upload the documents on the next date and that was also rejected. In such circumstance, when the petitioner claims to be a Class -I Contractor who has sufficient knowledge, certainly, these aspects should have been taken care by the petitioner. Even otherwise, except for relying on the representation said to have been made on 16.11.2013, there is no material that would inspire the confidence of this Court to come to a conclusion that the attempts of petitioner had failed only due to the reason that 15.11.2013 was declared as a Holiday. In that view, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.