Karnataka High Court
M/S Manu Creations vs Military Engineering Services on 4 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice Cj, Ksdj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S MANU CREATIONS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
57/2414 (OLD 28/1820), 5TH CROSS,
AMALA NAGAR, AMALABHAVAN ROAD,
KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI,
KERALA- 682 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR. SOLOMON THOMAS
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHIVANI SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARADA AND:
VANI B
Location: 1. MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES
HIGH COURT
OF REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER (AF)
KARNATAKA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2, DC AREA,
MES ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560 022.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER
SOUTHERN COMMAND HQ MES
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA- 411 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMAR M N.,CGSC FOR C/R1 & 2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2023 PASSED IN WP
No-21050/2022 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HONBLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to
the order dated 05.04.2023 whereby Appellant's
W.P.No.21050/2022 (GM-TEN) came to be rejected. In the
said Writ Petition, the Appellant had called in question
four Notices dated 30.08.2022, 03.09.2022, 30.09.2022 &
14.10.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent - Military
Engineering Services rescinding the tender work allotted to
it on the ground of non-compliance despite grant of
sufficient time & opportunity.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that
the learned Single Judge failed to consider that his client
had several days at his disposal to procure necessary
documents/drawings from the concerned entities since
extension was sought for beyond the initially stipulated 45
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
days; in any circumstance, the Blacklisting of his client
that was specifically challenged could not have gone
unexamined at the hands of the learned Judge.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
answering Respondents resists the Appeal making
submission in justification of the impugned order and the
reasons on which it has been structured. He hastens to
add that there is no order whereby the Appellant has been
Blacklisted except that some observations have been
made in the Letter dated 30.08.2022 a copy whereof
avails at Annexure-R18 to the Statement of Objections,
more particularly para 4 thereof. So contending, he seeks
dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing
for the parties and we have perused the Appeal papers.
We decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the
finding of the learned Single Judge, at para 8 of the
impugned order specifically states that not only Appellant
had produced the drawings within the tender stipulated
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
period of 45 days but the position remained the same
even after the ad interim order dated 05.11.2022 whereby
Appellant was given time to produce the same. Further,
the Appellant had undertaken to produce the same "...if a
day's time is granted..." this was on 29.11.2022 and
therefore, the interim order granted earlier was continued.
As a consequence, the learned Judge recorded a finding
about non-production of the drawings even as on
21.03.2023. We do not see any reason to falter the said
findings that have been recorded after considering the
entire material on record.
5. Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents is
right in contending that this is only an intra-court Appeal
and therefore, being the continuation of the writ
proceedings, it has the usual constraints of the Writ
Court. After all, what the Writ Court does is not the job an
Appellate Authority but, it does a limited judicial review of
the decision making process whereby the tender work
sought to be allotted to the Appellant, has been cancelled
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
for non-submission of the drawings within the stipulated
period.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the
Appellant that the Respondents are not justified in
stigmatizing his client and thereby Blacklisting him, more
particularly when the amount demanded by way of EMD
has been paid, after the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
This apprehension the Appellant need not have in view of
the clarification made by learned CGC appearing for the
Respondents that the Letter dated 30.08.2022 was
intended to coerce the Appellant to pay a sum of
Rs.3,18,000/- only in terms of para 13 of the Tender
Document and not for Blacklisting him. In support of this,
he justifiably banks upon paragraph 4 of the said Letter
which reads as under:
"Please also note that your firm is deemed
suspended for quoting of tender in any MES
formation till the aforesaid amount is deposited
in Government Treasury. In addition, your firm
is barred from participating in the subject
tender in terms of Para 13 on Sl Page No.197
of tender documents. Hence you are advised
not to quote for the subject tender."
NC: 2023:KHC:31845-DB
WA No. 648 of 2023
The above text shows that the bar is the subject Tender
specific and does not extend to other tenders wherein
Appellant can participate subject to compliances. This
becomes clear by the sentence "... your firm is barred from
participating in the subject tender... Hence you are advised
not to quote for the subject tender".
In view of the above, this Writ Appeal being devoid of
merits, is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv, Snb/
