AISHWARYA INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 07.05.2016 impugned at Annexure 'J' to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of madamus to direct the respondents to declare the petitioner's tender application as most responsive and issue work orders in respect of the notification issued at Annexure 'C' series.

(2.) The respondents issued a tender notification for the Comprehensive Development of Roads with Asphalting and other relating works in Gandhinagar Sub-Division for the purpose of carrying out the work on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner and one Sri.M.S.Venkatesh were two of the tenderers, who had responded. On technical evaluation, the tenders were opened and bid of the petitioner and Sri.M.S. Venkatesh were found to be technically qualified and the financial bid was opened. In that circumstance, the financial bid of the petitioner was found to be competitive and therefore, he was found to be L1 tenderer. At this stage, the other tenderer is stated to have raised certain queries with the respondents, pursuant to which the revaluation of the technical bids has been made and in that light having declared the petitioner was not technically qualified, has thereafter rejected the bid of the petitioner through the endorsement dated 07.05.2016. It is in that view, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents.

(3.) The respondents 2 to 4 have filed their objection statement. At the outset, it is contended that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act' for short). Insofar as the justification for the present action, it is contended that though an evaluation had been made at the first instance and the petitioner had also been found to be eligible, subsequently, it was noticed that the evaluation with regard to the previous work performance to the extent as provided under clause 3.2(b) has not been satisfied by the petitioner and the consideration had been erroneously made at the first instance. That apart, it was found that some of the documents, which were relied upon by the petitioner were not genuine and therefore, a re-consideration was required. In that view, since a note had been put up with regard to this aspect of the matter, a decision was taken to redo the matter and on such consideration, the Committee having redone the technical evaluation has found the petitioner to be not eligible and as such, based on the same, the endorsement dated 07.05.2016 is issued. Hence, the respondents seek to sustain the action taken in the matter.