Full Judgment
-1- 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-
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,
-3- 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 -4- (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
-5- 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 -6-
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