T.V. RAJAKUMAR GOWDA S/O LATE E.V.N. GOWDA PROPRIETOR OF R.R. CATERING SERVICES Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, THE DIRECTOR, KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY AND SRI M. SANJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this petition has sought for setting aside the order dated 25th April 2008 vide Annexure E as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to award the contract in favour of petitioner.

(2.) FACTS in brief is that, the second respondent -Director of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore has issued the Tender Notification dated 27th June 2007 to run a canteen in the second respondent -Hospital premises. The petitioner and the third respondent submitted their tender applications along with the respective quotations. The second respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner and his offer was rejected, in spite of quoting lower price in respect of 23 different items of food for the attendants and patients, who are admitted for treatment of their respective diseases. It is the case of petitioner that, even though, the third respondent has offered higher price in respect of the different items to be supplied in the hospital premises, his tender has been accepted without following due procedure as envisaged under the Transparency Act and Rules. Therefore, petitioner herein is constrained to redress his grievance by presenting the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) AFTER careful perusal of the material available on file including the grounds urged by petitioner and the stand taken by respondents in their statement of objections, what emerges is that, as per the Tender Notification dated 27th June 2007 vide Annexure A, it is specifically referred that, the tenderers shall submit their applications in two cover system to the second respondent for the year 2007 -08. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for respondents, admittedly, petitioner has not submitted his tender application in two cover system. Petitioner has submitted his application in only one cover. In the two cover system, one pertains to the technical bid, containing the particulars regarding the eligibility of the tenderer to participate in the tender proceedings pursuant to the Notification and the second cover pertains to financial bid, consisting of the quotation in respect of different items for catering. Admittedly, petitioner has not submitted his application by satisfying the basic requirement of producing two bids and therefore he was found ineligible. After opening of the first cover - technical bid, if he is found eligible, then, the second cover is opened. In the instant case, there is no question of opening second cover, since the petitioner has not fulfilled the basic requirement of submitting two bids in two cover system.