Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 430 (KAR)

RAVI AGENCIES v. UNION OF INDIA

2003-06-05

body2003
( 1 ) AN ineligible tenderer who had participated in tenders invited by the 2nd respondent - Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , from qualified persons to quote their offers and who has, in response to the said tender notification No. MS/dealer Distributor Tender/karnataka/02-03/1 Dated @ BG-8, the 5-8-2002, had made his officer, has approached this Court contending that even when he had given the least quotation, the respondents have not favoured him with contract, but have entrusted the contract to a person who had offered an higher quotation than that of the petitioner. ( 2 ) IN the circumstances, petitioner has called in question the validity of the award of the contract providing mobile service in the Uttara Kannada District in favour of the 3rd respondent. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner, that while the petitioner had offered the lowest price of Rs. 85/- for activation and commission @ 8%, the 3rd respondent had quoted at Rs. 88. 40 paise as the activation charges and had sought commission @ 94%. The petitioner contending that even when he has complied with all the tender requirements and he had offered the lowest quotation, he has not been awarded the contract and another person i. e. , the 3rd respondent, who had given a higher quotation, was awarded with the contract, that the action of the 2nd respondent entrusting the distributorship of mobile service in favour of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary and in violation of the tender conditions has sought for relief in this petition. It is urged that the order awarding the contract in favour of the 3rd respondent requires to be quashed and further that the 2nd respondent be directed to consider the offer of the petitioner to entrust the distributorship of mobile services in Uttara Kannada District in its favour and for incidental reliefs. ( 4 ) SRI Sridhar N. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner even when qualified and had fulfilled all the tender requirements, he has been denied the award of the contract, that the tender document indicated persons intending to bid and offer the quotations should have had a turnover ranging from Rs. ( 4 ) SRI Sridhar N. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner even when qualified and had fulfilled all the tender requirements, he has been denied the award of the contract, that the tender document indicated persons intending to bid and offer the quotations should have had a turnover ranging from Rs. 25 lakhs to 1 crore in the last two years, by way of work experience, and that as per the information furnished by the petitioner indicating the sales turnover of the petitioner for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 the turnover ranged between 22 lakhs to 30 lakhs and as such the action of the 2nd respondent being clearly arbitrary is required to be set-right by this Court by the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is inter alia pointed out, that the petitioner could not qualify for consideration of his offer inasmuch as every tender document had indicated, that eligibility criteria for intending bidders in respect of the various districts had been specifically indicated in the tender document though generally it was indicated, that it was ranging from 25 lakhs to 1 crore for each District. It had been specifically indicated in so far as the Uttar Kannada District in respect of which the petitioner had given its offer which had been given the area code as B-33, turnover requirement was at Rs. 50 lakhs and the petitioner obviously having not fulfilled this requirement, its offer could not be consdiered. ( 6 ) SRI Ashok Haranahalli, leared Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner was well aware of this condition, inasmuch as the entire tender document inclusive of the conditions and requirements to be fulfilled had been furnished to the petitioner, that the petitioner who was aware of this requirement had nevertheless suppressed this fact which was mentioned in the tender document and has sought to approach this Court by creating an impression that the petitioner has been unfairly treated. Statement of objections on behalf of respondents has been filed way back in December 2002. The matter had come up for further orders on two earlier occasions. Statement of objections on behalf of respondents has been filed way back in December 2002. The matter had come up for further orders on two earlier occasions. This case was heard yesterday and it was pointed out to the learned Counsel that as per the statement of objections that the petitioner was not eligible for consideration of his offer. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner qualified for consideration of its offer inasmuch as its turnover for the previous two years exceeded Rs. 25 lakhs. It is to ascertain this aspect of the matter, the case was adjourned to today. ( 7 ) SRI Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the tender document which clearly indicates and confirms the position and also the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 clearly show that the petitioner is not even eligible to participate and being not qualified, its offer in respect of Uttara Kannada District, where the turnover requirement was Rs. 50 lakhs could not be considered. Admittedly the petitioner's turnover being not up this mark, the action on the part of the 2nd respondent is perfectly just and proper. The petitioner has approached this Court supressing the material facts and has misled the Court and the learned Counsel arguing the matter should have verified the version of the petitioner, atleast after the statement of objections were filed on behalf of the respondents and ineligibility of the petitioner for considering his offer was pointed out. ( 8 ) IT is rather unfortunate that all frustrated contractors and bidders flood this Court with frivolous and untenable petitions. Any method is assumed to be fair to ensure that rivals do not get the contract when any complaint is brought before this Court, this Court has to examine such a complaint particularly as allegations of arbitrary-ness is attributed to authorities functioning as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) COURT proceedings are solemn in nature and persons approaching the Court should be aware of this and should come up at least with true and correct facts. Court proceedings cannot be converted into proceedings for settling private funds particularly by invoking the writ jurisdiction. ( 10 ) THIS is one such case of frivolous and untenable petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Court proceedings cannot be converted into proceedings for settling private funds particularly by invoking the writ jurisdiction. ( 10 ) THIS is one such case of frivolous and untenable petition. Writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is imposed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the 2nd respondent. The costs can be recovered by the 2nd respondent if not paid within four weeks, for which a certificate may be issued by the Registry of this Court, as if it is a decree. --- *** --- .