Karnataka High Court

Vinayaka Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                                           WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                                       C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                                           WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                                           WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                                           WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                                           WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                                           WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                                           WP No. 27657 of 2023


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 27961 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)
                                             C/W
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 21621 OF 2023 (GM-TEN),
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 21889 OF 2023 (GM-TEN),
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 26840 OF 2023 (GM-TEN),
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 27079 OF 2023 (GM-TEN),
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 27115 OF 2023 (GM-TEN),
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 27434 OF 2023 (GM-TEN),
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 27657 OF 2023 (GM-TEN),

                   IN WP NO.27961/2023
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI        BETWEEN:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           1.    VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,
KARNATAKA
                         NO. 67, 2ND MAIN,
                         BEHIND GANAPTHI TEMPLE,
                         VIJAYASHREEPURA,
                         MYSURU - 570 006.
                         (SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHED ACT 1961)

                         REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
                         SRI. SATYA PRAMOD,
                         AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                         SON OF M. RAMEGOWDA.
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                     WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                 C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                     WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                     WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27657 of 2023


2.   KUBERAKSHI HOTELS PVT.LTD.,
     COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
     COMPANIES ACT,
     NO 410, 2ND FLOOR,
     VIJAYANATHA ARCADE,
     GURUSEVABHOMA NAGAR,
     ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
     OPP. GOPALAN ARCADE,
     KEBGERI HUBLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 039.

     BY ITS DIRECTOR
     SMT. SARASWATHAMMA.

3.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS,
     NO. 69, KOORGALLI INDSUTRIAL AREA,
     ILLWALA,
     MYSURU - 570 027.

     REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
     PAWAN KUMAR,
     SON OF P.J. SHIVANNA.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
                              -3-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                        WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                    C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                        WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                        WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27657 of 2023


     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WP    IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED     TENDER      NOTIFICATION     DATED:10/11/2023,
ISSUED       BY        THE         R-2     BEARING       NO.
SA.RA.BA/VI.VA/KRA.RA.AA/201/2023-24 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
ETC.

IN WP NO.21621/2023
BETWEEN:

1.   M/S BDN ENTERPRISES,
     PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PATNER,
     SRI. B.D. DINESH,
     OFFICE AT NO. 2961/24, 5TH CROSS,
     6TH MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM,
     MYSURU - 570 009,
     (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SHOPS AND
     COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT)
                           -4-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                    WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                    WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                    WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27657 of 2023


2.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS,
     A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI. PAWAN KUMAR M.S,
     NO. 69, KOODALAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     ILWALA, MYSURU - 570 027
     (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SHOPS AND
     COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT)

3.   M/S VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,
     PROPRIETARY CONCERN
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI SATHYA PRAMOD,
     NO. 67, 2ND MAIN, BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE,
     VIJAYASHREEPURA,
     MYSURU - 570 006
     (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SHOPS AND
     COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT)
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
                           -5-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                    WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                    WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                    WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                    WP No. 27657 of 2023


     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR, IRWIN ROAD,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS WP   IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED:1.9.2023 ISSUED
BY THE R2 BEARING NO.SA.RA.BA/VI.VA.PKTB/24/2022-23
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

IN WP NO.21889/2023
BETWEEN:

1.   M/S BDN ENTERPRISES,
     PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PATNER,
     SRI. B.D. DINESH,
     OFFICE AT NO. 2961/24, 5TH CROSS,
     6TH MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM,
     MYSURU - 570 009,
     (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SHOPS AND
     COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT)

2.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS,
     A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI. PAWAN KUMAR M.S,
     NO. 69, KOODALAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                               -6-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                        WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                    C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                        WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                        WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27657 of 2023


     ILWALA, MYSURU - 570 027
     (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SHOPS AND
     COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT)

                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR, IRWIN ROAD,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WP    IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED:6.9.2023 ISSUED
BY   THE   R2    BEARING   NO.SA.RA.BA/SECURITY/19/2022-23
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
                            -7-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                     WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                 C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                     WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                     WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27657 of 2023


IN WP NO.26840/2023
BETWEEN:

1.   VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES
     NO.67, 2ND MAIN,
     BEHIND GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     VIJAYASHREEPURA,
     MYSURU -570 006
     (KARNATAKA SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT
     1961)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI. SATHYA PRAMOD,
     AGED 38 YEARS,
     S/O M. RAMEGOWDA.

2.   KUBERAKSHI HOTELS PVT LTD.,
     (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
     ACT)
     NO.410, 2ND FLOOR,
     VIJAYANATHA ARCADE
     GURUSEVABHOMA NAGAR,
     ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
     OPP. GOPALAN ARCADE,
     KEBGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 039

     BY ITS DIRECTOR
     SMT. SARASWATHAMMA.

3.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS, NO.69,
     KOORGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     ILWALA
                            -8-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                     WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                 C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                     WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                     WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27657 of 2023


     MYSURU - 570 027,
     (KARNATAKA SHOPS ESTABLISHMENT ACT 1961)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
     PAWAN KUMAR,
     S/O P.J. SHIVANNA.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WP   IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED.09.11.2023 ISSUED
BY     THE   SECOND    RESPONDENT      BEARING    NUMBER
sa.ra.ba/vi.ca/che.aa/198/2023-24 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
                            -9-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                     WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                 C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                     WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                     WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                     WP No. 27657 of 2023


IN WP NO.27079/2023
BETWEEN:

1.   VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES
     NO.67, 2ND MAIN,
     BEHIND GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     VIJAYASHREEPURA,
     MYSURU -570 006
     (KARNATAKA SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT
     1961)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI. SATHYA PRAMOD,
     AGED 38 YEARS,
     S/O M. RAMEGOWDA.

2.   KUBERAKSHI HOTELS PVT LTD.,
     (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
     ACT)
     NO.410, 2ND FLOOR,
     VIJAYANATHA ARCADE
     GURUSEVABHOMA NAGAR,
     ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
     OPP. GOPALAN ARCADE,
     KEBGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 039

     BY ITS DIRECTOR
     SMT. SARASWATHAMMA.

3.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS, NO.69,
     KOORGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     ILWALA
                            - 10 -
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                        WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                    C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                        WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                        WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27657 of 2023


     MYSURU - 570 027,
     (KARNATAKA SHOPS ESTABLISHMENT ACT 1961)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
     PAWAN KUMAR,
     S/O P.J. SHIVANNA.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WP   IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED.02.11.2023 ISSUED
BY     THE   SECOND    RESPONDENT         BEARING    NUMBER
SA.RA.BA/VI.VA/CHE.AA/79/2022-23 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
                            - 11 -
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                        WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                    C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                        WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                        WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27657 of 2023


IN WP NO.27115/2023
BETWEEN:

1.   VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES
     NO.67, 2ND MAIN,
     BEHIND GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     VIJAYASHREEPURA,
     MYSURU -570 006
     (KARNATAKA SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT
     1961)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI. SATHYA PRAMOD,
     AGED 38 YEARS,
     S/O M. RAMEGOWDA.

2.   KUBERAKSHI HOTELS PVT LTD.,
     (SHOPS COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 1961)
     NO.410, 2ND FLOOR,
     VIJAYANATHA ARCADE
     GURUSEVABHOMA NAGAR,
     ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
     OPP. GOPALAN ARCADE,
     KEBGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 039

     BY ITS DIRECTOR
     SMT. SARASWATHAMMA.

3.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS, NO.69,
     KOORGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     ILWALA
     MYSURU - 570 027,
                            - 12 -
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                        WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                    C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                        WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                        WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27657 of 2023


     (REG NO. 29DPRP8927 A1ZY)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
     PAWAN KUMAR,
     S/O P.J. SHIVANNA.
                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WP   IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED.03.11.2023 ISSUED
BY     THE   SECOND    RESPONDENT         BEARING    NUMBER
SA.RA.BA/VI.VA/CHE.AA/86/2022-23 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
                          - 13 -
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                      WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                  C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                      WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                      WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                      WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                      WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                      WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                      WP No. 27657 of 2023


IN WP NO.27434/2023
BETWEEN:

1.   VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,
     NO. 67, 2ND MAIN,
     BEHIND GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     VIJAYASHREEPURA,
     MYSURU - 570 006
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI. SATHYA PRAMOD,
     S/O M. RAMEGOWDA,
     AGED 38 YEARS
     (REG SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ACT 1961 )

2.   KUBERAKSHI HOTELS PVT LTD.,
     COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
     ACT NO.410, 2ND FLOOR,
     VIJAYANATHA ARCADE GURUSEVABHOMA NAGAR,
     ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
     OPP GOPALAN ARCADE,
     KEBGERI HUBLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 039.
     BY ITS DIRECTOR
     SMT. SARASWATHAMMA.

3.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS,
     NO. 69, KOORGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     ILWALA,
     MYSURU - 570 027,
     (REG. SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ACT 1961 )
     REG NO.29ABPFA5261K12X
     REPRESENTED BYI TS PROPRIETOR,
                            - 14 -
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                        WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                    C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                        WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                        WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27657 of 2023


     PAWAN KUMAR
     SON OF P J SHIVANNA
                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WP   IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED.10.11.2023 ISSUED
BY     THE   SECOND    RESPONDENT         BEARING    NUMBER
SA.RA.BA/VI.VA/KRA.RAA.AAA/202/2023-24 ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
                           - 15 -
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                       WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                   C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                       WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                       WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                       WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                       WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                       WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                       WP No. 27657 of 2023


IN WP NO.27657/2023
BETWEEN:

1.   VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES
     NO.67, 2ND MAIN,
     BEHIND GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     VIJAYASHREEPURA
     MYSURU-570006
     SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT
     1961,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     SRI. SATHYA PRAMOD,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     S/O M. RAMEGOWDA.

2.   KUBERAKSHI HOTELS PVT LTD.,
     COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
     ACT, NO.410, 2ND FLOOR,
     VIJAYANATHA ARCADE,
     GURUSEVABHOMA NAGAR,
     ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
     OPP.GOPALAN ARCADE,
     KEBGERI HOBL,
     BENGALURU - 560 039,
     BY ITS DIRECTOR
     SMT. SARASWATHAMMA.

3.   M/S ASHRAYA LABELS,
     NO.69, KOORGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA
     ILWALA,
     MYSURU - 570 027,
     SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL
                            - 16 -
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                        WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                    C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                        WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                        WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                        WP No. 27657 of 2023


     ESTABLISHMENT ACT 1961,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     PAWAN KUMAR,
     S/O P.J. SHIVANNA.
                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,

2.   THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN,
     MYSURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
     INSTITUTE,
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,
     MYSURU - 570 015.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1;
    SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WP   IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED.09.11.2023 ISSUED
BY     THE   SECOND    RESPONDENT         BEARING    NUMBER
SA.RA.BA/VI.VA/KRA.RA.AA/199/2023-24       ANNEXURE-A    AND
ETC.
                                  - 17 -
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:14246
                                              WP No. 27961 of 2023
                                          C/W WP No. 21621 of 2023
                                              WP No. 21889 of 2023
                                              WP No. 26840 of 2023
                                              WP No. 27079 of 2023
                                              WP No. 27115 of 2023
                                              WP No. 27434 of 2023
                                              WP No. 27657 of 2023




     THESE    PETITIONS,        COMING      ON   FOR    PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                       COMMON ORDER

Both of these cases petitions raise and challenge a

solitary notice inviting tender, issued for securing

manpower, to different hospitals coming within the

jurisdiction of the Medical Education Department, and a

solitary issue with regard to service charge of 2%, being

imposed in the tender condition. Since the issue is similar

and the Tender Inviting Authority being the same, they

are taken up together and considered by this common

order.

2. The petitioners are before this court seeking

quashment of a tender notification dated 10.11.2023 and

has sought for a direction by issuance of a writ in the

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

nature of mandamus to modify the offending tender

condition.

3. Heard Mr.Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel for

the petitioner and M.K.S.Harish, Government Advocate for

respondent No.1, Mr.Chandrakanth R.Goulay, learned

counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The second respondent issues a notice inviting

tender for securing manpower. The grievance of the

petitioner is that the tender should have been notified

without reference to 2% service charge as indicated, in the

tender notification.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

demand of 2% service charge is contrary to law.

6. The learned counsel Shri Mr.Chandrakanth

R.Goulay representing the institute would take this court

to an order passed by the co-ordinate bench, dated

26.09.2018 considering an identical circumstance, of 2%

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

service charge, in the tender notification, to buttress his

submission that the issue in the lis stands completely

answered by the coordinate bench in the aforesaid

judgement, which was concerning the very kind of tender,

notified by the same institution. The coordinate bench in

(M/S Surabhi Enterprises vs. State) W.P.No.42001/2018

and connected matters disposed on 26.09.2018 has held

as follows:

"2. Petitioner is common in all these writ petitions. It is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of supplying human resources such as security services, wardens, attenders, cleaners etc for the maintenance of hospitals, hotels and other such establishments. According to the petitioner, they have experience and knowledge in the said business and have been successfully running their business. That respondent No.2/Medical College and Research Institute has called for tender by way of e- procurement for maintenance of the

- 20 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

College and Hospital at Mysore, vide Notification dated 03/09/2018 for the year 2018-19 (twelve months) and in order to participate in the said tender, petitioner visited the website of respondent No.2, downloaded the Tender Notification and has submitted its bid before the last date. That the Tender Notification comprises of a two cover system consisting of a technical bid and a financial bid. That the last date for submission of tender was 19/09/2018. The technical bid was to be opened at 11.00 a.m. on 22/09/2018, but it has been extended to 27/09/2018 i.e. tomorrow. Petitioner being aggrieved by two conditions in the Tender Notification has presented these writ petitions.

3. The first condition is with regard to financial bid providing that the provident fund contribution must be 13.16% whereas as per Circular dated 21/05/2018 (Annexure-D), it is reduced to 13% and therefore, the Tender Notification ought to have stated that provident contribution should be 13% and not 13.16%.

- 21 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

Secondly, it is contended that the tender document states that minimum of 2% of service charges should be quoted by the bidder, which is opposed to law, as liberty is with the bidder to quote the rate at which the bidder is ready to provide services and therefore stipulating 2% minimum service charges is bad in law, as it is an arbitrary and irrational condition. Therefore, petitioner has contended that the entire tender process pursuant to the said Tender Notification is vitiated. It is further contended by the petitioner that under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 ( 'Rules' for the sake of brevity) thirty days time has to be provided for submission of tender where the value of the tender is up to two crores. In the instant case, the Tender Notification was published on 05/09/2018 and the last date for submission was 19/09/2018 which was later extended to 25/09/2018 and hence the Tender Notification is opposed to Rule 17.

- 22 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government

on advance notice and perused the material on record.

5. Petitioner's counsel drew my attention to Section 12 dealing with financial bid in the Tender Notification to contend that the rate of provident fund contribution is stipulated at 13.16 %, whereas as per Annexure-D issued by Ministry of Labour and Employment, which is Notification dated 21/05/2018, provident fund contribution has been reduced to 13% only. The same has not been considered and rather ignored by respondent No.2. Hence, on that score, the tender process being vitiated would have to be quashed. He further submitted that in the note appended to Section 12 financial bid, it is stated " minimum 2% service charges should be quoted" . That the fixation of minimum service charges being 2% is arbitrary, irrational and therefore, the same would have to be quashed. He contended that

- 23 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

ultimately work order should be issued to that entity or a person who quotes the lowest price or lowest bidder. Prescription of minimum 2% service charges would only imply that every bidder should quote only 2%. Having regard to the said prescription, a bidder who could very well quote less than 2% is not permitted to do so. That is left to the prudence and wisdom of the bidder and that respondent No.2 could not have stipulated the same. He further contended that as per Rule 17, the tender inviting authority has to ensure that adequate time would be provided for submission of tenders and a minimum time is allowed between the date of publication of the notice inviting tenders and submission of bids. In the instant tender bulletin the last date for submission of tenders was 19/09/2018 whereas the tender was floated on 03/09/2018. That the minimum period for tenders up to value of Rs.2.00 crores is thirty days. In the instant case, the minimum period of thirty days between the two dates has

- 24 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

not been complied with and therefore the entire tender process is vitiated on that score.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents on advance notice at the outset contended that if there is a reduction in the percentage of provident fund contribution made by the Central Government as per Annexure-D, the same would be made applicable and on that ground the tender process cannot be held to be vitiated. He further contended that stipulation of minimum 2% service charge is one of the conditions in the contract. The tender inviting authority has issued the said prescription and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not adjudicate upon the legality and validity of the said stipulation. He further contended that despite the same, petitioner has participated in the tender process and having done so, petitioner is now estopped from raising any contention against such stipulation in the Tender Notification.

- 25 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 17, there shall be reduction in the time stipulated by the tender inviting authorities and for that, reasons in writing has to be recorded that the petitioner has not ascertained as to whether the reasons under sub-rule(2) has been recorded or not. At any rate petitioner cannot have any grievance on that aspect of the matter, as the petitioner has submitted his bid pursuant to Annexure-A, tender notification and at this stage petitioner cannot now contend that there is no compliance with Rule 17 of the Rules. In support of his submission, learned Additional Government Advocate has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Michigun Rubber v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216:

AIR 2012 SC 2915 by making a specific reference to paragraph-10 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the observations made earlier in the case of Tata Consultancy v Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC

- 26 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

651 and also paragraph-23 of the judgment wherein the principles which emerge from the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been culled out as well as paragraph-24 of the said judgment which prescribes the test to be adopted while considering other challenge made to a tender notification. Learned Additional Government Advocate contended that there is no merit in these writ petitions and that the same may be dismissed.

8. By way of reply, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, wherein the parameters for interference by High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of judicial review of administrative action have been delineated by making a pointed reference to paragraph- 22 of the said judgment.

9. It is noted that respondent No.2 has issued Tender Notification as per Annexure-A

- 27 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

dated 03/09/2018. Clause- 1 of the Tender Notification inter alia deals with the object and purpose for calling tenders, which is for providing house keeping services in the Hospital and Research Institute of respondent No.2 for a period of one year (twelve months). The details are stipulated therein. The publication of the tender was on 05/09/2018. The Pre- Bid Meeting was held on 11/09/2018. Last date for submission of tenders by way of e-procurement portal was on 19/09/2018 which was extended to 25/09/2018. Thereafter, technical bids are to be opened on 27/9/2018 (tomorrow) as per the extended time. Subsequently, financial bids would be opened and the eligible bidder would be issued the work order.

10. The first contention of petitioner is with regard to prescription of 13.16% contribution towards provident fund. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the said contribution has been 13% only, then the same shall be adhered to only as per

- 28 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

Annexure-D by respondent No.2. In view of the said submission, the challenge made to the prescription of 13.16% towards provident fund contribution would no longer survive and hence, it is not necessary to consider further on that aspect of the matter. The tender process cannot be vitiated on the aforesaid aspect.

11. As far as prescription of minimum 2% as service charge in the tender document is concerned, in my view, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when no case is made out as to why such prescription is either irrational or arbitrary or whimsical. Respondent No.2 must have had certain intentions behind insertion of such prescription i.e. minimum 2% service charges to be quoted by the bidder. In the absence of establishing that the said stipulation is arbitrary or irrational, it is for the bidder to accept the same and bid for the tender or not to bid at all, if the same is not acceptable. In the

- 29 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere in these writ petitions on account of the said stipulation of the said condition. However, petitioner herein has submitted his bid and therefore he is deemed to have accepted the aforesaid condition.

12. As far as compliance of Rule 17 is concerned, petitioner has not been able to state categorically that no order under sub- rule(2) of Rule 17 has been passed by respondent No.2- authority, which is an exception to sub- rule(1) of Rule 17. That apart, petitioner having participated in the tender process is estopped from contending at this point of time. That there is non- compliance of Rule 17(1) of the Rules and therefore the tender process is vitiated.

13. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the tender process assailed in these writ petitions.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner has in fact referred to the case of Jagadish Mandal, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

- 30 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

categorically referred to the principles that would be applicable in the matter of judicial review of administrative action in paragraph-22 thereof, which reads as under;

" 22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is " sound".

When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of

- 31 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;

- 32 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached" ;

(ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."

In the said paragraph, the test to be adopted in such matters have been discussed which are also found in paragraph -24 of the Michign Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and the same has been affirmed in the latter decision.

- 33 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

15. On applying the aforesaid decision, I find that the answers are in the negative in the instant case and therefore, these writ petitions would not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

16. That apart, in Michigun Rubbers(India) Limited, at paragraph -19, the following principles have been stated.

" (a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State and non-

arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State Acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;

(b)fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the

- 34 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited;

(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted.

(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.

- 35 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246

The aforesaid principles would clearly apply to the instant case and there can be no interference with the stipulation or fixation of values by the authority calling the tender, in the absence of the same being arbitrary, whimsical or irrational. Thus there being no merit in these writ petitions.

17. Writ petitions are hence dismissed."

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner

Mr.Sangamesh R.B., would seek to distinguish the said

judgement on the score that the judgment was rendered

in the light of the fact that the tenderer therein who

participated in the tender could not have turned around

and challenged the said tender. The learned counsel for

the petitioner seeks to emphasize on the fact that he has

not participated in the tender, but objected to the 2%

indication in a pre-bid meeting held by the respondent.

- 36 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14246