BAMDEVNAYAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law is involved in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts will be referred to with reference to W. P. No. 41444 of 2003.

(2.) FACTS in W. P. No. 41444 of 2003. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'commissioner' for convenience) invited tenders from intending contractors for taking up works for improvement of roads and drains in Tumkur at a huge cost under the directions of State of karnataka and Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and finance Corporation, a project financed by the Asian Development Bank to be completed within a prescribed time, in the first instance, in the month of January 2003. The petitioner and one Rangegowda both contractors, had submitted their tenders. Petitioner had quoted Rs. 3,10,65,746/ -. Before the tenders could be opened, the information regarding the rates quoted by the contractors were leaked to the press. The Commissioner therefore, cancelled the tender notification and issued a fresh notification which was published in the newspapers on 17-5-2003. Petitioner again submitted his tender along with other contractors. After the opening of the technical bids, petitioner and the 4th respondent were short listed. Thereafter the financial bid was opened on 4-8-2003 in the presence of the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs. 2,84,13,852. 81 i. e. , 8. 5% less than what he had quoted earlier for the same contract besides offering a general rebate of 5% on all the items of contract while the 4th respondent had quoted Rs. 3,01,97,347. 50 Paise.

(3.) THE Commissioner forwarded the tenders of both the petitioners and the 4th respondent to the Tender Approval Committee consisting of secretary, PWD, Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Tumkur; managing Director of the 2nd respondent and assisted by Adviser (Eng.), KUIDFC, Project Management Consultant, Executive Engineer, tumkur Municipal Council, Team Leader and Domestic Consultant. Before the Committee took up the rival tenders for consideration the 4th respondent moved this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36453 of 2003 taking objection to the manner in which the petitioner had submitted his tender i. e. , "offering a rebate of 5% by a separate letter annexed to the tender document", as not being in accordance with the tender conditions. However, the 4th respondent withdrew the writ petition. After this legal hurdle was cleared, while the Tender Approval committee was considering the rival tender applications of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the Commissioner intimated the tender Approval Committee that the petitioner had failed to execute an: earlier contract entrusted to him of similar nature and magnitude in time and therefore, it was not desirable to entrust the work to him again and there was also a move to black list him. On the basis of this information and also on the ground that petitioner had quoted 8. 5% less than what he had quoted for the same contract six months earlier, the tender Approval Committee by the proceedings dated 15-9-2003, rejected the petitioner's offer though it was lower than the 4th respondent (however, 4th respondent has reduced the price than what was quoted by petitioner after negotiations), and has ordered for awarding the contract to the 4th respondent. This decision of the committee has also been approved by the Asian Development Bank authorities. Petitioner as stated, has challenged the said act of the commissioner in awarding the contract on the ground that the action of the Commissioner in selecting 4th respondent is highly arbitrary and the Commissioner is biased in favour of the 4th respondent.