ORDER
The petitioner has sought the cancellation of the tender notification, dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure-A). The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the submission of the income tax returns subsequently, his bid is rejected.
2. Sri. Ajay J. Nandalike, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only three parties offered the bids and that the bids of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are accepted. When there are only two bidders, the impugned tender process has to be called off and fresh tender process has to be initiated. In support of his submissions, he read Clause 20 of the tender notification (Annexure-A) which is extracted hereinbelow:
3. Based on the afore-said term, the learned counsel would contend that the bids of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also ought to have been rejected and fresh tender process ought to have been resorted to. Without prejudice to this submission, he submits that if the number of tenderers is less than three, then the tender accepting authority ought to have taken the decision assigning the reasons. He submits that such a decision is not taken.
4. Sri. T. Seshagiri Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has raised a threshold bar to the maintainability of this petition. He submits that under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (‘said Act’ for short) an appeal is provided for if anybody is aggrieved by the order passed by the tender accepting authority. He submits that the petitioner's technical bid is already rejected as it was not accompanied by the requisite documents as per the tender notification. He submits that it is after the rejection of the petitioner's bid that the document (income tax returns) came to be filed by the petitioner.
5. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration.
6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the tender accepting authority's order rejecting the petitioner's technical bid, the petitioner is required to file an appeal invoking Section 16 of the said Act. If he gets the rejection order reversed, then his further grievance can be considered.
7. Further, if a party proposes to challenge the tender process on the ground that the bids are non-responsive and that the acceptance of the non-responsive bid is not in public interest, the same has to be agitated by filing a public interest litigation.
8. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
9. If the petitioner files the appeal before the appellate authority within one week from today, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of 15 days from the date of its filing.