SRISHAILA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

ORDER Heard Shri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner, Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Advocate for respondent No.4.

2. Second respondent called for a tender for construction of Coastal Berth at Old Port in Mangaluru. Petitioner submitted its bid. There were three other Contractors who participated in the tender. Technical Bid Evaluation Committee recommended the technical bid of respondent No.4 and held petitioner's bid as non- responsive. Petitioner challenged its rejection before the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed. Respondent No.4 challenged Appellate Authority's order in W.P. No.8600/2020 on the ground that it was not made party in the appeal. The said petition was disposed of and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. After remand, the Appellate Authority has dismissed petitioner's appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Shri. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: In the first round, the Appellate Authority was presided by a Technical person. After considering all aspects, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal. In the second round, the Appellate Authority was presided by an IAS Officer. The impugned order does not contain any reasons and therefore, it is unsustainable in law.

4. Shri. Sabarad submitted that the order passed by the first Appellate Authority in the first round has been quashed by this Court and therefore, it cannot be looked into. Petitioner has not uploaded required documents before the last date. Further, petitioner has not fulfilled Clause 3.2 of the Bid documents to qualify itself for consideration. The work has already been awarded and the respondent No.4 has commenced the work.

5. Learned Advocates on both sides adverted to various aspects in the tender documents and the earlier order passed by the Appellate Authority as also the impugned order.

6. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and non-consideration of relevant material on record.

8. The principal contention urged by Shri. Nanjunda Reddy is that the Appellate Authority in the first round of litigation was presided by a technical person and after considering all the technical aspects, petitioner's appeal was allowed. The impugned order is passed in the second round of litigation by the Appellate Authority presided by an IAS Officer and it does not contain reasons.

9. The tender notification is produced as Annexure- B. The tender condition required a bidder to enclose documents attested by a Gazetted Officer/Notary. The last date to submit the hard copies of technical details uploaded through e-procurement was 07.02.2020.

10. It is recorded in the impugned order that petitioner has submitted the original documents before the Appellate Authority which considered petitioner's appeal in the first round. In the earlier order dated 10.06.2020, passed by the Appellate Authority, it is recorded that petitioner has produced the certificate issued by the Chennai Court dated 18.03.2020.

11. In the impugned order, it is recorded that petitioner has uploaded self attested statement. The requirement as per tender condition is to file certificates attested by Gazetted Officer/Notary. Thus, it is clear that when the last date of submission of documents was 07.02.2020, petitioner has sought to rely upon the certificate issued the Chennai Court in March 2020 which is clearly after the last date for submission of documents. In the first round the first Appellate Authority has taken note of the Chennai Port Trust's certificate dated 18.03.2020 and allowed the appeal.

12. The Appellate Authority has recorded that uploaded documents as on 07.02.2020 are self certified statements regarding construction and bank statement showing monetary transaction.

13. Shri Sabarad has pointed out that one of the work requirements namely, 'In Situ Diaphragm Wall Cement Concrete' is not found in the Chennai Port Trust Certificate.

14. In a case of this nature, what is required to be seen is whether the Appellate Authority has complied with the principles of natural justice, considered the relevant material on record and recorded cogent reasons.

15. The petitioners have been heard in the matter. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The appellate Authority has rightly held that only such documents which were uploaded before the last date could be considered and it has accordingly considered. Admittedly, petitioner has uploaded self attested documents which is not in compliance with tender condition. The certificate issued by Chennai Port Trust which has been considered in the first round of appel is beyond the last date. The appellate authority has rightly eschewed such irrelevant material from consideration. Hence, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order.

16. Resultantly, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE