MICHIGAN RUBBER INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE core point, which calls for determination in these writ petitions is, the extent of judicial review permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the tender prescribing eligibility criteria. The moot question would be whether this Court could change the terms incorporated in the tender notice on the ground of it being inappropriate and the objective would be better served by adopting a different eligibility criteria.

(2.) THE facts that are relevant for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition can be summarized as follows: the petitioner-company claims that it is engaged in the manufacturing of Tyre and Tube business. It is a reputed manufacturer and for over a period of time has earned good will in the said Industry and also with the industries in which its goods are used. The petitioner would state that it has been supplying Tyres, Tubes and Flaps to several state Transport Corporations apart from Karnataka State Road transport Corporation. It is also stated that for the year 2005-06 the petitioner was supplying the tyres of required statistics to the 2nd respondent-Corporation.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent is a public undertaking and is plying buses through out the State of Karnataka and its neighbouring States. Having regard to Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999, the 2nd respondent invited tenders for supplying of 5,000 sets of Tyres, tubes and Flaps. It is not in dispute that the said tender was an E-tender. The two conditions/criteria for applying for the tender are: