Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.16109 OF 2022(GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
PRALAKSHA CHARITABLE TRUST., NO.275, VEDA ARCADE, HUNSUR MAIN ROAD, HOOTAGALLY, MYSORE 570 018. REP. BY TRUSTEE POONAM PRASAD. CAHRITABLE TRUST, PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OR ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 OR ANY OTHER LAW APPLICABLE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.ADITYA D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY TRANSPORT SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICERS, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO WITHDRAW THE TENDER NOTIFICATION NO.KSRTC/COM/01/202-23 DTD.25.7.2022 AT ANNEXURE B AND ISSUE A FRESH NOTIFICATION BY IMBIBING CLAUSES TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC PROPERTY AND TO FACILITATE AND TRANSPARENT COMPETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner - Registered Charitable & Educational Trust is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent “to withdraw the tender notification dated 25.07.2022 at Annexure-B and to issue a fresh notification by imbibing clauses to protect the public property and to facilitate fair and transparent competition in the interest of justice”. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the tender condition which prescribes experience of ‘25 years’ in running charitable hospital of the kind is arbitrary and uncalled for and therefore, the entire tender should be voided and a direction for issuing a fresh tender needs to be granted.
After service of notice, the 1st Respondent being represented by the AGA and the 2nd by its panel counsel vehemently oppose the petition contending that the petitioner is essentially an educational trust, even if arguable it is charitable. It has no locus standii to maintain the Writ Petition. They also contend that what condition of qualification & eligibility should be prescribed is left to the tender inviting authority and therefore, the Writ Courts cannot interfere in the matter. So submitting, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the respondents. The Trust Deed dated 08.11.2019 supports contention of the respondents that the trust is less than three year old and it is established as a public charitable trust essentially for educational purpose. Therefore, it has no locus standii to maintain the petition.
In matters of tender, especially one of the kind, prescription of years of experience cannot be faltered. An argument to the contrary would imperil the lives & limbs of patients who come for dialysis. By no stretch of imagination, a trust which is less than three year old can manage a dialysis center which is mainly meant for poor people and employees of the KSRTC. Experience has got its own value in matters like this and therefore, the impugned prescription cannot be faltered, more particularly when the petitioner has not whispered about any experience in such matters, let alone years of experience.
Learned AGA is more than justified in placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTOS Vs. UOI & ANOTHER,
(2020) 16 SCC 489 has observed that in matters relating to conditions of tender, the Writ Courts should ordinarily keep away since they do not have expertise for evaluating a host of factors that entered the fray of
making such conditions. There is absolutely nothing to falter the impugned condition on the grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
This is a fit case for imposition of exemplary costs inasmuch as, absolutely without any justification petitioner has secured an interim order that interdicted the tender process for some time to the enormous prejudice of potential dialysis patients who will be charged on par with government rates and with some concession as well. Treatment of these patients should be the priority and therefore, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner, who has absolutely no case. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is. However, very reluctantly no costs are levied.
Sd/- JUDGE
Bsv