MOHAMMED SANAULLAH S/O MOINUDDIN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.202926/2019 (GM-TEN) Between: Mohammed Sanaullah S/o Moinuddin, Age: 34 years Occ: Business R/o Himalaya Road Ways Opp. Sath Kacheri, Lingasuru Road, Raichur … Petitioner (By Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, Advocate) And: 1. The State of Karnataka Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore-01 Represented by its Secretary 2. The Commissioner Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs # Cunningham Road Sahakara Bhavan Bangalore-560052

2 3. Deputy Commissioner Raichur District Raichur-584101 4. Mohd. Haji S/o Not known Age: Major, Occ: Business M/s. Global Transport Raichur - 584101 … Respondents (By Sri K.M.Ghate, AGA for R1 to R3; Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate for R4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 18.06.2019 vide NO.0/0 FCS/11/1/2018 at Annexure-E and etc. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:- ORDER With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-E to the writ petition inter alia seeking a direction to the

3 respondents to grant work order in favour of him as per the tender notification. 3. The petitioner is a transport contractor and had participated in the tender notification proceedings dated 30.05.2018 called by respondent No.2. After considering the tender applications, respondent No.4 was selected as lowest bidder and an agreement was executed by the authorities concerned. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that on several complaints made against respondent No.4 inasmuch as granting tender, respondent No.2 has ordered for reconsideration of the matter by a Quality Evaluation Committee constituted. Accordingly, the Committee has discussed and opined that respondent No.4 had violated the terms and conditions of the tender notification and hence canceling the said tender, it is appropriate to call for a short tender for transporting the essential commodities as per the public distribution

4 system. However, respondent No.2 has issued the order dated 18.06.2019 allotting the tender and issuing work orders to respondent No.4. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned is ex facie contrary to the decision of the Committee constituted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 having constituted a Committee to examine the matter relating to the tender of respondent No.4 directing to issue work order to respondent No.4 is only arbitrary and colorable exercise of the power. 6. Learned counsel Sri Shivanand Patil appearing for respondent No.4 vehemently argued that the order impugned is issued subsequent to the directions issued by respondent No.2. Moreover, it is an interim arrangement made awaiting appropriate direction from the Government. Respondent No.4 has made huge investments towards the work entrusted and

5 the allegations made in the Committee report dated 16.11.2018 is against the Technical Bid Committee’s report. The members of the Quality Evaluation Committee were indeed the members of the Technical Bid Committee and no different stand ought to have been taken by the said Committee against the report of the Technical Bid Committee, which has attained finality. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Poddar Steel Corporation vs. M/s.Ganesh Engineering Works and Others reported in AIR 1991 SCC 1579 to contend that no authority inviting the tenders is bound to give every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail. On technical irregularities, no tender can be rejected. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that on the directions issued by

6 respondent No.2, respondent No.3 has issued the order impugned and as such no exception can be found with the order impugned. 9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 10. The controversy revolves around the decision of the Quality Evaluation Committee vis a vis the direction issued by respondent No.2 – Commissioner for granting tender in favour of respondent No.4. It is evident that on the complaints received, inasmuch the notification for granting tender, respondent No.2 has referred the matter to Quality Evaluation Committee consisting of the following members: 1. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur. 2. Executive Engineer, DUDC Racihur. 3. Executive Engineer, PWD Raichur. 4. Deputy Director of Women and Child Welfare Department, Raichur.

7 5. Income Tax Officer, Raichur. 6. RTO, Raichur. 7. District Labour Officers, Raichur. 8. Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies Department, Raichur. 11. The members of the aforesaid Committee have examined the documents relating to respondent No.4 in the meeting convened on 16.11.2018. It was decided that the tender called on 30.05.2018 and the executing order issued to respondent No.4 on 01.10.2018, has to be cancelled and fresh short tender has to be called. If that is the decision of the Committee constituted to examine the genuineness of the tender awarded to respondent No.4, respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.3 to issue work order to the same person in terms of the tender called on 30.05.2018 assigning the reasons that the matter was referred to the Government seeking for a direction and awaiting

8 such directions, work order has to be executed is wholly unsustainable. There is no consistency in the opinion of respondent No.2. 12. It is mandatory on the part of the respondent No.2 to consider and act upon the decision of the Committee constituted for evaluation purpose but strangely respondent No.2 is acting much against his own decision. It appears that the respondent No.2 is procrastinating the issue in order to favour the respondent No.4 to continue with the tender and the work order issued, giving a go-bye to the directions sought by the Government as well as the decision of the Committee. The order dated 18.06.2019 issued, permitting the respondent No.4 to proceed with the work order subsequent to the decision of the Committee cannot be countenanced. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 would be of

9 little assistance in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.06.2019 at Annexure-E to the writ petition is quashed. The Commissioner – respondent No.2 is directed to consider the report of the Quality Evaluation Committee and take a decision in accordance with law after hearing all the stake-holders in an expedite manner. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all the pending IAs stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Srt/BL