Karnataka High Court
Shri. Dharmaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2024
-1-
W.P.No.104191/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.104191 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. DHARMARAJ
S/O HANAMANTAPPA MELINAMANI
AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCC. CLASS I CONTRACTOR,
R/O.WARD NO.14,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
KUSTAGI, TQ. KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583277
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK,
ROOM NO.335, 3RD FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
RPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PIN-560001
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK
(NORTH DIVISION) DHARWAD,
D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL
PIN.580001
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD DN, NEAR ESWAR PARK,
KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL
PIN.583231
-2-
W.P.No.104191/2024
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD SUB DIVISION,
NEAR BUS STAND,
KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL
PIN-583277.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ONLINE 3s
TENDER NOTIFICATIONS DATED 10/07/2024, BEARING NOS.PWD/
2024-25/RD/WORK-INDENT10839, THE IMPUGNED ONLINE TENDER
NOTIFICATION BEARING NOS.PWD/2024-25/RD/WORK-INDENT
10805 AND THE IMPUGNED ONLINE TENDER NOTIFICATION
BEARING NOS.PWD/2024-25/RD/WORK INDENT10786 AT SL.NO.1, 2
AND 4, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 23.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging
the validity of the online tender notification dated
10.07.2024, issued by respondent No.4, as outlined in
Annexure-H. The petitioner specifically disputes the tender
work listed under Sl.No.1, 2, and 4 of the notification.
The core issue revolves around the alleged contravention
of reservation policies in the tender process, which,
according to the petitioner, denies him and other similarly
situated individuals from depressed classes an opportunity
to participate.
2. The petitioner belongs to the Madar community,
a recognized minority group, and claims entitlement to
participate in government tenders under a reservation
policy. He argues that the Karnataka Transparency in
Public Procurement (Amendment) Act, 2016 mandates
specific reservations in public procurements: 20% for
Scheduled Castes, 5% for Scheduled Tribes, 20% for
Other Backward Classes, and 5% for Minorities. The
petitioner's grievance is that the impugned tender
notification violates this policy by consolidating multiple
works into a single package, thus exceeding the Rs.1
Crore threshold and effectively excluding smaller
contractors, including those from marginalized
communities, from participating.
3. The petitioner's counsel supported his argument
by referencing a prior judgment from W.P.No.53036/2017
(Sri. Vishwanath H.M. v. Government of Karnataka and
others). The counsel asserted that the practice of
amalgamating several road projects into a single tender is
inconsistent with the reservation policy and deprives
marginalized communities of fair competition. The counsel
emphasized that in previous instances, tenders for similar
projects were floated independently, allowing greater
access for smaller contractors, including those from
depressed classes.
4. In response, the learned High Court
Government Pleader (HCGP) argued that the tender
process was conducted in compliance with the legal
framework. The HCGP cited a judgment from a Co-
ordinate Bench, which established that the tender inviting
authority has the discretion to choose the method of
tendering, with judicial review limited to evaluating the
decision-making process rather than the substance of the
decision itself. Furthermore, the HCGP pointed out that the
petitioner, having not participated in the tender process,
lacks the standing to challenge the notification. The HCGP
also referenced the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region
Development Board Order, 2013, which authorizes the
Board to prepare and implement project plans based on
technical and administrative recommendations.
5. Upon reviewing the arguments and materials
presented, the Court observed that the tender notification
included a comprehensive package plan. This plan involved
the consolidation of several projects, including the
construction of cement concrete roads and drains in
different locations. This Court is satisfied that the decision
to package the projects was based on technical and
administrative considerations, including the efficient
utilization of available funds and the reduction of
unnecessary expenditures. The Court recognized that the
comprehensive package approach was intended to
streamline the tender process and ensure the project's
successful completion under a single contract.
6. After careful consideration, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner has not provided sufficient
evidence to demonstrate any error in the decision-making
process of the competent authority. The Court emphasized
the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters,
noting that it could not intervene in the authority's
discretion unless there was a clear violation of legal
principles. Although the Court acknowledged the
importance of upholding reservation policies, it also
recognized that such policies might not be feasible for
every tender project.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed for
lack of merit.
All pending interlocutory applications are also
disposed of in light of the dismissal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
