Jayaraj Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Jayaraj vs The State of Karnataka and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Karnataka Decided Aug 01, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/381225

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/381225
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.L. Manjunath, J.
Decided On: Aug 01, 2005
Case Number: W.P. No. 10703 of 2005
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KARNATAKA TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT RULES, 2000 - RULE 1(a) OF RULE 17-MINIMUM TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF TENDERS UNDER -HELD- Any Reduction in the time stipulated under Sub-rule (1) has to be subject to permission obtained from the superior authorities-respondents have failed to obtain the permission- from the...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 - Rule 17, 17(1) and 17(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayaraj

Advocate C.N. Kamath and ;N. Vinayaka Kamath, Advs.

Respondent

The State of Karnataka and ors.

Advocate M. Keshava Reddy, AGA

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 - Rule 17, 17(1) and 17(2)
Reported In: ILR2005KAR4159; 2005(6)KarLJ30

Excerpt

.....from the superior authorities to publish the notification even before the completion of 30 days time-the action of the respondents is contrary to the rule 17(2) of rules 2000.;writ petition allowed. - order 23 rule 3: [b.s. patil, j] compromise of suit - satisfaction of the court - denial of compromise by a party to the suit - procedure required to be followed by the court -held, as per rule 3 of order 23 when it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by both the parties, the court has to record such agreement or compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith. proviso to rule 3 of order 23 cpc states that if the alleged compromise is denied by a party, then the court shall decide the question without granting any adjournment for the purpose of deciding the same unless it thinks fit and proper for reasons to be recorded to grant such an adjournment. even if a compromise or settlement that has taken place outside the court is set up by way of defence in a suit, the court is required to enquire into such agreement or compromise. it is clear that the compromise or settlement that is entered into in writing and signed by the parties need not have been so entered into before the court and in the presence of the presiding officer. what is required is the satisfaction of the court regarding the fact that such a compromise or settlement has, in fact, been entered into and the same was duty reduced into writing and signed by both the parties. in addition, the court has to be also satisfied that the same is lawful. if these requirements are satisfied, the compromise will be accepted and a decree in terms of the said compromise will have to be drawn. the court below has misdirected itself in understanding the effect and purport of the provision. - 2. a notification was issued inviting tenders for supply of food materials like bread, milk, etc......dated 17.2.2005 issued by the 4th respondent is in accordance with rule 17 of the karnataka transparency in public procurement rules, 2000 and whether this court can permit the respondents to proceed with the finalisation of tender process.5. facts of this case are not in dispute. notification has been issued by the 4th respondent as per annexure-a on 17.2.2005 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to submit the applications on or before 15.3.2005. from this, it is clear that there is short of 2 days as per 17-1(a) of karnataka transparency in public procurement rules, 2000, which reads hereunder;17. minimum time for submission of tenders:- (1) tender inviting authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the notice inviting tenders in the relevant tender bulletin the last date for submission of tenders. this minimum period shall be as follows:-(a) for tender upto rupees two crores in value, thirty days; and(b) for tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value (thirty days).(2) any reduction in the time stipulated under sub-rule(1) has to be specifically authorised by an authority superior to the tender inviting authority for reasons to be recorded in writing.6. from a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the time stipulated under sub-rule (1) can be reduced by an authority superior to the tender inviting authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing. even if the officials of the respondents were deputed on election duty, even if the notification is not in accordance with sub-rule 1(a) of rule 17, still the 4th respondent or 3rd respondent could have obtained permission from the superior authority to publish the notification even before completion of 30 days time. the respondents have not explained the reasons for having not obtained such permission from the superior authorities. even though the law provides from such an act, when.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.L. Manjunath, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. A notification was issued inviting tenders for supply of food materials like bread, milk, etc., to the different hospitals of Chitradurga District. Annexure-A is the notification dated 17.2.2005 permitting the applicants to obtain the documents on or before 11.3.2005 and submit the same on or before 15th March 2005 before 11.p.m. The present petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that the notification is contrary to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000. According to the petitioner, if the value of tender is upto rupees two crores, the authorities have to give a minimum period of 30 days to receive the tender documents from the date of publication. Therefore, relying upon Rule-17, petitioner has approached this Court to quash the notification dated 17.2.2005 contending that the last date fixed by the 4th respondent to receive the tender document as 15.3.2005 will fall short of two days. Therefore, contending that Annexure-A is not in accordance with Rule 17, he requests this Court to quash the same.

3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contends that there is a short of 2 days in publishing the tender notification, since the officials were engaged in election duty. Therefore, he requests this Court to condone the lapse and permit the respondents to proceed with the tender process.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is; whether Annexure-A dated 17.2.2005 issued by the 4th respondent is in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 and whether this Court can permit the respondents to proceed with the finalisation of tender process.

5. Facts of this case are not in dispute. Notification has been issued by the 4th respondent as per Annexure-A on 17.2.2005 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to submit the applications on or before 15.3.2005. From this, it is clear that there is short of 2 days as per 17-1(a) of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000, which reads hereunder;

17. Minimum time for submission of tenders:- (1) Tender inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant tender Bulletin the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows:-

(a) For tender upto rupees two crores in value, thirty days; and

(b) For tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value (thirty days).

(2) Any reduction in the time stipulated under Sub-rule(1) has to be specifically authorised by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing.

6. From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the time stipulated under Sub-rule (1) can be reduced by an authority superior to the tender inviting authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Even if the officials of the respondents were deputed on election duty, even if the notification is not in accordance with Sub-rule 1(a) of Rule 17, still the 4th respondent or 3rd respondent could have obtained permission from the superior authority to publish the notification even before completion of 30 days time. The respondents have not explained the reasons for having not obtained such permission from the superior authorities. Even though the law provides from such an act, when the respondents have acted contrary to the Rule 17(2) of Rules 2000, this Court has to quash Annexure-A issued by the 4th respondent contrary to Sub-rule 1(a) of the Rules. When such being the case, this Court cannot permit the respondents to proceed with the finalisation of the tender, when the respondents have committed an error on the face of the record.

7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-A dated 17.2.2005 issued by the 4th respondent is hereby quashed. It is open for the 4th respondent to issue fresh notification for the remaining period and to finalise the tender process in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2005 Same Parties Jayaraj vs The State of Karnataka and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge K.L. Manjunath, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 - R...

Civil