INDIRA MAHILA MANDAL (REGD.) vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.202738/2017 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: Indira Mahila Mandal (Regd.) Jaffer Gunj, Station Area, Tq. Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi Represented by Smt. Indumati W/o Dhanaraj Aged about 30 Years, R/o Station Area, Jaffer Gunj, Chittapur Taluka-585 211 Dist: Kalaburagi …Petitioner (By Sri. Shivakumar Malipatil & Sri. Hanmanth M. Gilki, Advocates) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary to Government, Department of Backward Classes & Minorities, 1st Floor, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001 2. The Deputy Commissioner Kalaburagi Dist: Kalaburagi-585 102

2 3. District Officer for Backward Classes Welfare Department, Kalaburagi District-585 102 4. Taluka Minorities Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Tq. Chittapur Dist: Kalaburagi-585 401 Represented by its President, Sri Mohammed Rasool …Respondents (By Sri. R.V. Nadagouda, AAG & Sri. Shivaputra S. Udbalkar, HCGP for R-1 to 3; Sri A. Vijaykumar & Sri Laiq Pasha, Advocates for C/R-4) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order quashing the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in No.Backward/Accts/ Food/ Chittapur/2016-17/111 dated 24.4.2017, which is produced at Annexure-D and the order passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.2413/2017 dated 17.6.2017 case which are at Annexure-E. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following; O R D E R The petitioner has called in question the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 24.4.2017 as well as the order passed by 1st respondent in Appeal No.2413/2017 dated 17.6.2017 at Annexure-D and E, respectively.

3 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Shivakumar Malipatil, appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri. R.V. Nadagouda, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri. Shivaputra S. Udbalkar, High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri A. Vijaykumar, appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner is claiming to be a registered body, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The petitioner has participated in the tender, called by the 2nd respondent, for supply of foodgrains and other materials to the hostels run by the Department of Backward Classes and Minorities, Department of Social Welfare, Ashram Schools, Moraji Desai Residential Schools, etc. for the year 2016-17. In addition to the petitioner, three other organizations have also participated in the tender, which was called on 13.02.2017. The respondent No.4 herein has been awarded the contract for supply of foodgrains and other materials.

4 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s Society after obtaining the documents produced by the 4th respondent in response to the tender, came to know that the respondent No.4 has not tendered the most important documents like, Price List, Income Tax Returns, VAT Returns, Turnover Details and the Bank Guarantees, etc., Despite the same, 2nd respondent without verifying the documents produced by the 4th respondent, awarded the contract for supply of foodgrains and other materials to the said respondent contrary to the tender conditions, the same is arbitrary, illegal and capricious. 5. Being aggrieved by the contract awarded by the 2nd respondent in favour of 4th respondent, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 which came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

5 6. The order passed by the Appellate Authority at Annexure-E prima facie depicts that there is no application of mind by the authority. After recording the rival submissions of the parties, framing the point for consideration, the Appellate Authority proceeded to answer the point in a cryptic manner, without assigning valid reasons. The order of the Appellate Authority is a non-speaking order, which requires reconsideration. It is hardly required to be stated that the authorities acting under the statute are discharging quasi judicial functions and are necessarily required to assign the reasons for arriving at a decision, so that the higher Forum can understand the mind of the authority in passing the order or taking a decision. In the absence of any reasons assigned in the order, such an order has to be construed as void and non est in the eye of law. Thus the impugned order being a non-speaking order as aforesaid is quashed. 7. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority-Respondent No.1 to reconsider the same in

6 accordance with law and to pass a speaking order as expeditiously as possible after due notice to the concerned parties within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/-

JUDGE BL