PETER Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has assailed order at Annexure -A passed by the first respondent -Deputy Commissioner dated 28.08.2014 and as well as the order of the second respondent -City Municipality, Sirsi ('CMC for short) dated 04.09.2014, Annexure -B.

(2.) THE facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner claims to be a registered contractor eligible to apply for the tenders invited by the second respondent -CMC for carrying out various civil works. That pursuant to sub section (2) of Section 18A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'), the State Government issued a notification dated 09.10.2012, indicating the criteria for issuance of e -procurement tenders under Section 18 -A of the Act. According to the petitioner, this notification was issued subsequent to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 64281/2012 disposed on 05.09.2012 and the notification at Annexure -F dated 09.10.2012 issued by the State Government is applicable to the second respondent -CMC, as per Sl. No. 84 in that notification. By that notification, inter alia 44 CMCs, including the second respondent -CMC, who intend to procure goods or services of value of Rs. 5,00,000/ - or more, must do so only through e -procurements. Thus, notification is issued pursuant to sub section (2) of Section 18A of the Act by the State Government. Thereafter, the second respondent has issued two tender notifications dated 13.08.2014 and 28.08.2014 which are at Annexures -G and H respectively. Those tender notifications are stated to be contrary to the Government order dated 09.10.2012 (Annexure -F). Inasmuch as, the second respondent has not resorted to e -procurement under those notifications. It is in that context that the first respondent -Deputy Commissioner passed the order at Annexure -A dated 28.08.2014, cancelling Annexures -G and H In response to Annexure -A, the second respondent issued Annexure -B dated 04.09.2014 under which certain items of the tender notifications at Annexures -G and H are cancelled, while a few items are not. It is under the aforesaid factual matrix that the petitioner has assailed Annexures -A and B orders.

(3.) IT is contended that on behalf of the petitioner that Annexures -G and H, tender notifications were in line with Annexure -F notification issued by the State Government, as each of the procurement under those notifications did not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/ -. Therefore, the second respondent need not have resorted to e -procurement. That being the case, the first respondent could not have held that those tender notifications were contrary to Annexure -F notification dated 09.10.2012 and thereby unilaterally cancelled those tenders notifications on the premise that the second respondent had not resorted to e -procurement. He therefore contended that the order at Annexure -A has adversely affected the right of the petitioner to apply to the tenders at Annexures -G and H.