ARJUN TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is coming up for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsels on both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is an unsuccessful tenderer for a tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Koppal district, for supply of food and other materials to pre-metric, post-metric, hostels, residential schools and residential PU colleges coming under the Minority Welfare Department of the District, for the year 2019-2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-authority has not adhered to Clause 8.1 of the tender conditions which reads as follows:

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that from a close reading of Clause 8.1, it is clear that the tender authority was required to determine the rates by taking three months average rates of APMC previous to the tender notification or market rates or online rates or last tender rates. Further, it is submitted that the tender authority had in fact written to the Assistant Director of APMC seeking the average of three months rates and the Assistant Director, by communication dated 21.05.2019 at Annexure-R2, which is produced along with the statement of objections, has communicated to the tendering authority in reply stating that since there is fluctuation in the rates, therefore along with the average rates that were given to the Deputy Director of the Social Welfare Department, it was requested that the rates in the open market as well as online which is available in the website - 'krishimaratavahini.kar.nic.in' may be obtained before arriving at a final conclusion. Learned Additional Government Advocate therefore submits that it is as per the communication made by the Assistant Director, APMC, that the tendering authority took the advise of the Deputy Director and proceeded accordingly. Even otherwise, it is submitted that since Clause 8.1 does not restrict the determination of three months average rates of the APMC since there are alternatives provided in the clause itself, the decision of the tendering authority in looking at the market rates or online rates, cannot be faulted with.