What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the order reducing the tender submission period to be arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned notices inviting tenders were set aside.

What were the issues?

Whether the reduced time period for tender submission violated the mandatory minimum period stipulated in the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000. Whether the order authorizing the reduction in time was arbitrary.

Shri Ranganath Dhanasing Pawar vs The State of Karnataka | Karnataka High Court 2017

Q: What were the facts?

Petitioners challenged e-tender notifications issued by the respondent, arguing they violated the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000. The tenders, valued over two crores, provided less than the stipulated sixty days for submission.

- - WP No.40586/2017

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.40586/2017 (GM-TEN-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI RANGANATH DHANASING PAWAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT KEB LAMANI TANDA INDI – 586 209 DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR

SHRI YAMUNAJI DHONDUPANT SALUNKE

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

OCC: BUSINESS, GOUDAR ONI INDI – 586 209, DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR

SHRI SIKANDAR IQUABALSAB PATIL

AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

HALLAD ONI, INDI -586 209

DISTRICT VIJAYPUR

SHRI RAVI UDAY RATHOD

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

OCC: BUSINESS R/AT KEB LAMANI TANDA

INDI – 586 209, DISTRICT VIJAYPUR ..PETITIONERS

(BY SRI ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

- - WP No.40586/2017

PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT

VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

VIJAYPUR DISTRICT, VIJAYPUR – 586 101

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS

PORTS AND INLAND WATER

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

VIJAYPUR DIVISION, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS

PORTS AND INLAND WATER

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

INDI – 586 209

THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL INDI, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, INDI – 586 209

THE HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)

O & M DIVISION, INDI – 586 209

THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL

ADMINISTRATION, BY ITS DIRECTOR

9TH AND 10TH FLOOR

VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS

DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU – 560 001

THE HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

COMPANY LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE

BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

NAVANAGAR (BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE)

HUBLI – 580 025

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.DEVDAS, PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 & R7; NOTICE TO R5, R6 & R8 DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DATED 31.10.2017)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-TENDER NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURES-H AND E, TENDER NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-J BOTH DATED 10.08.2017

- - WP No.40586/2017

3 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):

This writ petition is directed against the notices inviting tenders at Annexures-H & J. 2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7 submits that presence of the other respondents is not necessary, and hence, notice to them may be dispensed with. Accordingly, notice to respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8 is dispensed with. 3. By consent of learned Counsel on both sides, the petition is heard finally on merits and is being disposed of by this order. 4. The date of publication of the impugned notices inviting tenders is 10.08.2017 and the last date stipulated for submission of tenders is 04.09.2017. The value of both the tenders is in excess of Rupees Two Crores. 5. The above factual position is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate.

- - WP No.40586/2017

4 6. The contention urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the aforesaid notices inviting tenders at Annexures-H & J are contrary to Rule 17(1) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 (‘the Rules’ for short) as the minimum period of sixty days stipulated in Rule 17(1) of the Rules is not provided for submission of the tenders.

The learned Government Advocate refers to Rule 17(2) of the Rules and submits that the Authority Superior to the Tender Inviting Authority has passed an order dated 21.07.2017 under Rule 17(2) reducing the time stipulated under Rule 17(1) of the Rules. He has produced the said order along with a memo dated 30.10.2017. 8. Rule 17 of the Rules reads as follows: “17. Minimum time for submission of tenders.—

(1) The Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and a minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant Tender Bulletin and the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows.—

(a) for tenders upto rupees two crores in value, thirty days; and (b) for tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value, sixty days.

(2) Any reduction in the time stipulated under sub-rule(1) has to be specifically authorized by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing.”

- - WP No.40586/2017

5 9. As could be seen from the said order, the reduced time limit is not even stated in the order. The order is clearly arbitrary. Therefore, the order dated 21.07.2017 cannot be sustained in law. Hence, it is unnecessary to examine the other contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. They are kept open.

10.

In view of the above, the notices inviting tenders at Annexures-H & J are set aside. The concerned respondents are at liberty to redo the tender process afresh in accordance with law.

Petition disposed of. Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR

SHRI RANGANATH DHANASING PAWAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments