SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Prathima Honnapura, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent no. 3 issued the request for proposal on 20-7-2016 for design, manufacture, supply and commissioning of the buses. The uploading of the bid could not be completed on account of the display of the message 'unexpected error'. It is the assertion of the petitioner that it has also submitted the hard copy of the bid to the respondent 3. On the ground that the price bid was not uploaded, the respondent 3 was not considering the petitioner's case. This made the petitioner to file W.P. No. 48493 of 2016 (Scania Commercial Vehicles India Private Limited, Achhatanahalli Village, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar District Vs. Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru and Others 2017(1) Kar. L.J. 357. This Court, by its order dated 10-11-2016 (Annexure-D) disposed of the said petition with a direction to the (respondent 4 to make the provision for the respondent no. 3 to access the bid submitted by the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 was directed to consider the petitioner's bid on e-tender mode without permitting any other additions or alterations and evaluate the same as per the terms and conditions of the tender in comparison with the other bids received.

(3.) Sri Uday Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Shwetha Ravishankar for the petitioner submits that the respondent 3 has violated the order dated 10-11-2016 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 48493 of 2016. He submits that the respondent 3 by not acting in compliance with the said order has undermined the rule of law. He submits that the presence of at least two bidders would made the tender arena competitive. He submits that the public would be benefited, if the petitioner's bid is considered and accepted. He would assert that by accepting the bid of the respondent 5, the loss of Rs.75 Crores is caused to the respondent He submits that the petitioner's price bid is in the PDF format. If it is only ordered to be retrieved, it would establish that the petitioner's uploading its bid online is completed before the deadline.