5 C 75 D 6 F 5 B 338 D 11 Fe 905 B 4 B 3

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Priyam Sharma (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas)
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.5608 OF 2018 (GM-TEN)

C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.5491 OF 2018 & 5610 OF 2018

(GM-TEN)
IN W.P.NO.5608/2018
BETWEEN
Chamundi Motors,
A Partnership firm constituted
and registered under the
Indian Partnership Act running
the business in dealership of
PIAGGIO vehicles, having
registered office at No.225/2,
near 10th BTS bus depot,
2nd main road,
Vrindavananagar,
HBR Layout,
Bengaluru – 560043.
Represented by its authorized partner,
Mr. N. Hemanth Kumar …..Petitioner
(By Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Advocate for

Sri. Nityanand V. Naik, Adv for
Sri. Prakash M. Patil Advocate)
AND
1. The Principal Secretary to

the Government of Karnataka,
2
Urban Development Department,

Vikasa Soudha,
Bengaluru– 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru – 560 002.
3. The Special Commissioner (SWM)

Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagarpalike,
Hudson Circle,
4. The Joint Commissioner (Health & MSW)

Office of the Joint Commissioner,
BBMP Head Office,
N.R. Square
5. The Executive Engineer-3

Solid Waste Management,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Solid Waste Management-1
2nd Floor, Dasappa Hospital Premises,
N.R.Road,
Bengaluru – 560 002. ...Respondents
(By Sri.Vijaya Kumar Patil, AGA for R1

Sri. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, Adv. for R2-R5
Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, Adv. for R2-R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying to direct 2nd respondent and
5th respondent-Corporation to permit the petitioner to
participate in the tender process by forming a consortium
with a financially sound party and having experience and
expertise in the field of collection and transportation of
Municipal Solid Waste in response to the tender
3
notification dated 04.01.2018 issued by 3rd respondent

vide Annexure-C etc.,
IN W.P.NO.5491/2018
BETWEEN
Sri. C.R. Veeranarayana Chary

S/o Late K. Ramachary
Aged about 66 years
No.705, Sri. Veerabrahma Krupa
5th Cross, Upkar Residency Layout
Vishwaneedam Post
Bengaluru - 560 091. …..Petitioner
(By Sri. Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Advocate for

Sri. Varun T. Patil, Advocate for petitioner)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka

Represented by Principal Secretary
Urban Development Department
Vikasa Soudha
2. The Commissioner
N.R. Square
3. The Joint Commissioner(Health and MSW)

N.R. Square
4. The Executive Engineer 3, SWM-1

2nd Floor, Dasappa Hospital Premises
N.R. Square
Bengaluru – 560 002. ...Respondents
4
(By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Patil AGA for R1

Sri. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, Advocate for R2 to R4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the
respondent No.3 to extend the time to submit the bids as

per the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in
Public Procurement Rules 2000 etc.,
IN W.P.NO.5610/2018
BETWEEN
Smt. P.Kavitha,
W/o P.Gopinatha Reddy,
Aged about 51 years,
R/o No.6, 1st B Cross,
Behind Sandhya Cinema Tent,
Old Madiwala,
Bengaluru – 560068. …..Petitioner
(By Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Advocate for

Sri. Prakash M. Patil Advocate)
AND
1. The Principal Secretary to the

Government of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
2. The Commissioner,
Hudson Circle,
3. The Special Commissioner (SWM)

Hudson Circle,
5
4. The Joint Commissioner (Health & MSW)

Office of the Joint Commissioner,
BBMP Head Office,
N.R. Square,
5. The Executive Engineer-3,

Solid Waste Management,
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Solid Waste Management-1,
2nd Floor, Dasappa Hospital Premises,
N.R. Road,
Bengaluru – 560002. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Vijaya Kumar Patil, AGA for R1

Sri. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, Adv. for R2-R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying to direct the 2nd respondent
corporation to permit the petitioner to participate in the
tender process by forming a consortium with the
manufacturing company or the dealer in response to the
tender notification dated 04.01.2018 issued by 3rd
respondent vide Annexure-A.
These Writ Petitions coming on for “Dictating

Judgment” this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
As per the Government Orders dated 21.06.2016
and 12.08.2016, BBMP had resolved to purchase
auto tippers for collection of solid waste from different
wards and micro plan was prepared ward-wise to
collect the solid waste for two days in a week. For
said purpose, it was resolved to purchase 555

6
numbers of auto tipper for the financial year 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018 for a sum of Rs.1530 lakhs for
each year earmarked and as such during March

2007, BBMP being alive of perennial problems of
Solid Waste Management was conscious of this fact
and for the reason that financial year was coming to
an end, it resolved to purchase 555 numbers of auto
tipper (4 wheeler) at a time.
2. BBMP was also of the opinion that Tata Ace
2.0 cubic meter Box Tipper-B.S 4 model is an ideal
vehicle since that was the only four wheeler vehicle as
per B.S 4 norms available. Original records would
also disclose that as on 01.03.2017, BBMP had called
upon suppliers of Tata vehicles to quote their prices
for supply of vehicle to BBMP and it was received by
email as extracted in the note sheet dated
09.03.2017. At that point of time, BBMP resolved to
bring in certain amendment to its requirements of
vehicle. Accordingly, it was resolved to purchase 555

7
vehicles at a cost of Rs.28,45,47,945/- and
evaluation charges to be paid to such agency, who
undertakes such evaluation at the rate of 0.15% +

12.36% service tax, in all for a sum of Rs.3,49,435/-.
Thus, total cost for purchase of said vehicles was
Rs.28,48,97,380/-, was sought to be utilized from the
funds of SFC grant of Rs.30,60,00,000/- for which
approval was sought for from the appropriate
Government.
3. Said proposal being forwarded to the
appropriate Government, by communication dated
26.04.2017 from appropriate Government to BBMP,
the letter relating to latest DGS & D was called for. At
that juncture, a Technical Committee for Special
Infrastructure Grants–Solid Waste Management of
BBMP had met and discussed with regard to
technical details and specifications and accordingly,
resolved to call for the tender by specifying the
technical details and in this background, it came to

8
be resolved to call for tender for Tata Ace Cabin
Load Body B.S 4 model vehicle (4 wheeler) with
necessary modifications with regard to constructing

the body of vehicles. It was found that four wheeler
B.S 4 vehicle i.e. Tata Ace Cabin Load vehicle is the
only vehicle which would suit the said specifications
and accordingly, BBMP intimated manufacturers of
Tata ACE Cabin Load BS4 vehicle to furnish price list
and accordingly, price list has been furnished.
According to same, the total cost of 565 numbers of
auto tipper was indicated as Rs.28,13,43,092/- and
in this background, proposal was put up for approval
of purchase of 565 auto tipper vehicles from M/s
Tata Motors Ltd., at a total cost of Rs.28,10,47,950/-
plus evaluation charges from third party agency at a
cost of Rs.2,95,142/- and permission was sought for
to utilize the sum of Rs.30,60,00,000/- received
under the grants referred herein supra subject to
other modifications with regard to body building of
the vehicle, fixing of sound system, by dispensing

9
with a period prescribed under The Karnataka
Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 or in
other words to call for short term tender by putting

up a note to the Assistant Executive Engineer-Solid
Waste Management and Environmental Engineer.
Same has been approved by Executive Engineer on
21.07.2017, by Chief Engineer on 26.07.2017 and
Joint Commissioner as well as Commissioner of
BBMP have also approved the same on 21.07.2017
and 26.07.2017 respectively. The said proposal has
been forwarded to the appropriate Government for its
approval by BBMP on 26.07.2017 and the
appropriate Government by its communication dated
15.09.2017 had resolved as under:-
¤tðAiÀÄ: “DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ©.©.JA.¦. gÀªÀgÀ ¥À¸

æ ÁÛª£
À A
É iÀÄ
§UÉÎ C¢üPÁgÀAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸À«Äw ¸ÀÄ
sÉ iÀÄ°è
PÀÆ®APÀÄµÀªÁV ZÀað¹ CAwªÀÄªÁV PÉ.n.¦.¦.
PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è 565 DmÉÆÃ n¥ÀàgïUÀ¼À

CªÀ±ÀåPÀv,É DmÉÆÃ n¥ÀàgïUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ºÁUÀÆ
¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ E¤ßvÀgÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À §UÉÎ
WÀ£ÀvÁådå ¤ªÀðºÀuA
É iÀÄ dAn DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ
10
ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄRå C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÆtð

«ªÀgU
À ¼
À ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À C¢üPÁgÀAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸À«Äw
¸ÀÄ
sÉ iÀÄ°è «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¸À®Ä ©.©.JA.¦.UÉ
¸ÀÆa¹ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ
(Deferred)”.
4. The appropriate Government by
communication dated 06.11.2017 addressed to
Commissioner-BBMP, after referring to its earlier
communications, discussions and taking into
consideration the requirements of BBMP to purchase
auto tippers (4 wheeler) under the DGS&D rates
came to be examined and directed the Commissioner
to re-examine the issue. The direction so issued by
the appropriate Government reads as under:-
“ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, §ÈºÀvï

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄºÁ£ÀUg
À À ¥Á°PÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ
Mt vÁådå ¸ÀAUÀº
æ ÀuÉUÁV ‘DmÉÆÃ n¥Ààgï’ (£Á®ÄÌ ZÀPU
Àæ ¼
À ÀÄ)
UÀ¼£
À ÀÄß r.f.J¸ï & r zÀgU
À ¼
À À°è RjÃ¢¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É
¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ vÀªÀÄä ¥À¸
æ ÁÛª£
À A
É iÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. r.f.J¸ï & r zÀgU
À ¼
À ÀÄ ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï
CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄV¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ C¯Áàª¢
À ü mÉAqÀgï PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä
11
©.©.JA.¦. ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ªÁºÀ£UÀ ¼

À À RjÃ¢ ¸ÀASÉå
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CUÀvÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä
£Á£ÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝÃ£É”.
5. BBMP instead of taking further steps in this
matter to obtain approval from the appropriate
Government, has taken a complete detour. In other
words, it has completely ignored the directions issued
by the appropriate Government and has resolved to
tread its own path. Inspite of having referred to the
direction issued by appropriate Government dated
06.11.2017, at all places including note sheet and the
technical approval report by order dated 04.01.2018,
Chief Engineer-Solid Waste Management-I, BBMP
has passed an order giving technical approval for
release of Rs.36,40,00,000/- under the heading
“Technical Approval” for purchase of 565 numbers of
auto (4 wheeler). Pursuant to the same and in
anticipation of approval from the appropriate
Government, short term tender notice i.e. with 15
days notice, tender was called for, which note again

12
has been put up by the Assistant Executive
Engineer–Solid Waste Management, Environmental
Engineer-Solid Waste Management and approved by

Executive Engineer, Chief Engineer, Joint
Commissioner and Commissioner of BBMP on
28.12.2017 and thereafter, tender process has been
set in motion and accordingly, the subject tender has
been called for, namely, tender notification dated
04.01.2018 Annexure-A came to be issued.
Questioning the said tender notification, petitioners
are before this Court.
6. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Ashok
Harnahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Sri. K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel
appearing for respondent-BBMP and
Sri.N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel also
appearing for the respondent-BBMP and Sri. Vijaya
Kumar Patil, learned Additional Government

13
Advocate appearing for the State and perused the
original records as noticed herein above.

7. The gist of arguments addressed by learned
Advocates appearing for the petitioners is on three
grounds:
(i) Tender Inviting Authority had already
resolved to call for tender of the vehicles
manufactured by M/s Tata Motors Ltd., only without
specifying the name.
(ii) Conditions regarding supply of vehicles by
issuing addendum specifying thereunder that the
suppliers should have satisfactorily supplied
minimum 170 numbers of four wheeler auto vehicles
similar to the type specified in the Schedule of
requirements as per tender or by incorporating to
Government Department/Local Bodies in the last
three years is an onerous condition and petitioners
and other prospective bidders though have supplied
vehicles to the contractor, who are now using the said

14
vehicles for disposal of the solid waste at BBMP, such
condition could not have been imposed on petitioners
or in other words, the condition so stipulated is

onerous insofar as petitioners are concerned since
their vehicles being used by BBMP through the
contractors are the same vehicles being
manufactured and supplied by the petitioner in
W.P.No.5608/2018.
(iii) Yet another ground, which has been raised
by learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners is that there is no compliance of Rules
17(1) and 17(2) of The Karnataka Transparency in
Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (herein after
referred to as “Rules” for the sake of brevity) and any
infraction thereof should be viewed seriously and as
such, the tender notification called for should be
quashed.
8. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned
Counsel appearing for BBMP leading arguments on

15
behalf of the respondent-BBMP has made available
the original records and would submit that insofar as
the condition imposed with regard to the bidders

possessing the requisite capacity, capability,
experience for having supplied 170 numbers of 4
wheeler or 3 wheeler auto vehicles to Government
agency, is to ensure and to know the capability and
genuineness of the bidders and it would not be
possible for Notice Inviting Authority to ascertain
from private parties to whom the auto tippers is said
to have been supplied by petitioners and it would be
difficult to ascertain the genuineness of said supplier
or ascertain whether such vehicles was used for
similar kind of works and as such contending, if the
conditions are relaxed, it would amount to allowing
the petitioners to participate in the tender without
notifying others, who may also be intending to
participate in the changed scenario.

16
9. He would also further contend that as to the
technical details, which the Tender Inviting Authority
may fix or impose would be in the domain of such

Tender Inviting Authority and it is not for the bidders,
who would participate in the bid to contend that
specifications mentioned there under is to be varied
or changed and experts would have gone into these
aspects while floating the tender or prior to the
floating of the tender and as such, neither the
petitioners nor similarly placed persons can dictate
terms on which Tender Inviting Authority is required
to stipulate the conditions in tender.
10. He further contends that petitioners
were aware that last date for submission of tender
was 05.02.2018, since he had participated in pre-bid
meeting wherein he did not raise any of the grounds
now urged in the present petitions including the
ground of alleged infraction of Rule 17 and he draws
the attention of the Court to the proceedings of pre-

17
bid meeting produced along with statement of
objections, which is also available in original records
which was held in response to pre-bid queries raised

by the petitioners as per Annexure-H. He would also
further contend that since tender was through e-
procurement and last date for receiving the tender in
e-portal was 05.02.2018 at 5:00 p.m., question of
opening or permitting the petitioners to submit their
tender did not arise and as such, tender submitted
by the petitioners physically on 12.02.2018, which
was pursuant to the interim order granted on
06.02.2018 as well as on 12.02.2018 cannot be heard
to contend that their bids were also required to be
opened since similarly placed persons would be
deprived of their valuable right to participate in the
tender. Hence, he prays for rejection of the writ
petitions.
11. Insofar as contention regarding non-
compliance of Rule 17 is concerned,

18
Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-BBMP has relied more heavily on the
proceedings of BBMP as recorded in the original file

to buttress his arguments that there is no infraction
of Rule 17(2) and as such, said contention raised by
the petitioners are liable to be rejected.
12. Sri.N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel
appearing also for the respondent-BBMP in
connected matters would support the arguments
canvassed by Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel
appearing for BBMP.
13. Sri. Vijaya Kumar Patil, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State supports the arguments canvassed by
Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for
BBMP and he would also add that scope of judicial
review of an administrative action is limited in the
matters of tender and this Court exercising
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of

19
Constitution of India would not sit as an appellate
Court to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the
decision taken by the Commissioner, namely,

Corporation, as well as the appropriate Government
in this regard and as such, question of quashing
impugned tender notification would not arise and
keeping in mind the urgency that has been expressed
by BBMP, time schedule fixed under sub-rule (1) of
Rule 17 has been dispensed with in exercise of power
vested with the authority superior to Notice Inviting
Authority under sub-rule (2) of Rule 17. Hence, he
prays for rejection of petitions.
14. Having heard learned counsel appearing
for the parties and on perusal of the records, it
requires to be noticed that in the matter of tender,
this Court would not interfere in the said process
until and unless the decision- making process is
flawed and the decision so arrived at by the tender

20
inviting authority is illegal and such decision will not
be within the scope of judicial review.

15. This Court exercising power under
Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India would
not act as an appellate Court to examine the
correctness or otherwise of the decision arrived at by
Notice Inviting Authority. This Court would not
interfere with the decision taken by Notice Inviting
Authority unless it is established that such decision
is capricious, arbitrary and not being in non-
consonance with the scope of the tender. The scope of
judicial review in the matter of tender is to see
whether there has been any infirmity in the decision-
making process and even if there are any minor
irregularities, the Courts would ignore the same and
not interfere unless substantial public interest
involved or malafides would arise attributable to
Notice Inviting Authority and that would be the
primary concern of the Court. For this proposition,

21
judgment of Apex Court in the following cases can be
looked into :
1. In the case of TATA CELLULAR VS.

UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1996

SC 11.
2. In the case of STERLING COMPUTERS

LIMITED VS. M/S M & N PUBLICATIONS
LTD., & OTHERS reported in AIR 1996
SC 51.
3. In the case of RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL

LTD., VS. I.V.R CONSTRUCTION LTD.,
AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1999 SC
393.
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
JAGADISH MANDAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND
OTHERS reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 has held
that limited question, which will have to be
considered in a writ petition filed by an unsuccessful
Tenderer is to find out whether the Committee has
acted unreasonably in taking decision in question. It
is further held that scope of judicial review by the

22
High Court being limited, it envisages examination of
the question whether there was any material
irregularity in the decision-making process or

whether the decision of the Committee and
consequential rejection of the lowest tender was
irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary. It has been
held :
“26. We have referred to various reports

only to show that there exist divergent views
about the genuineness of the TD passbook. It
is wholly unnecessary to record a definite
finding on the issue whether the TD passbook
submitted by one of the tenderers towards
EMD is genuine or forged. In this case, as the
Superintendent of Post Offices informed the
Department that the postal TD passbook
produced by the fifth respondent should not
be acted upon, the Committee proceeded to
hold that his tender was “non-responsive” or
defective as it was not accompanied by a
valid EMD. In such circumstances, the limited
question that had to be considered in a writ
petition filed by the unsuccessful tenderer is
whether the Committee acted unreasonably
23
in taking such a decision. There can be no

doubt that it did not. The tender was to be
accompanied by an EMD as prescribed. If the
Postal Department which issued the TD
passbook pledged by the fifth respondent

towards EMD, said that it should not be
acted upon, there is no question of the
Committee then holding any further enquiry
about its genuineness and holding up the
evaluation of tenders. For example if a pay
order/banker’s cheque/demand draft issued
by a bank is produced as EMD and the bank
informs that such pay order/cheque/DD
should not be acted upon, the authority
concerned is not expected to suspend the
process of evaluation and hold an enquiry in
regard to the validity of genuineness, but act
upon the information received from the bank
and treat the EMD as defective and proceed
with the evaluation of tenders on that basis.
28. The limited scope of judicial review

by the High Court envisaged examination of
the question whether there was any material
irregularity in the decision-making process or
whether the decision of the Committee and
consequential rejection of fifth respondent’s
24
tender was irrational, unreasonable or

arbitrary. The validity of the decision of the
Committee taken on the material available at
the time of consideration of tenders, cannot
be tested with reference to a subsequent

police enquiry report submitted in the writ
proceedings. Nor can it be held that the
Committee acted arbitrarily in not accepting
the passbook, on the basis of some report
opining that the TD passbook is genuine. The
High Court was not sitting in appeal over the
decision of the Committee. The High Court
could not, therefore, by relying on a
subsequent police enquiry report, the
correctness of which is yet to be established,
hold that the Tender Committee was wrong in
rejecting the TD passbook. Further, the High
Court missed the issue. The question for
consideration was not whether the TD
passbook pledged by the fifth respondent is
genuine or not. The question for consideration
was whether the Committee acted arbitrarily
or irrationally in rejecting the said TD
passbook”.
25
17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagadish
Mandal’s case has further held that before interfering
in the tender or contractual matters in exercise of

power of judicial review, the Courts should pose to
itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision
made by the authority is malafide or
intended to favour someone ?
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision
made is so arbitrary and irrational that Court
can say: “the decision is such that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have
reached?;
(ii) Whether public interest is affected ?
18. If the answers are in negative, there
should be no interference under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. It has been further held in

26
Jagadish Mandal’s case above referred to that judicial
review of administrative action is intended to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias

and malafides. Its purpose is to check whether choice
or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check
whether choice or decision is “sound”. But power of
judicial review in the matters of commercial tenders,
this Court will have to keep in mind the commercial
and technical prudence, which would have gone into
the mind of decision-making authority and on the
said basis, the decision would have been relied on.
Thus, the scope of judicial review would be very
limited. The power of judicial review will not be
permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at
the cost of public interest.
19. That apart the conditions, which is to
be imposed and adherence to such condition would
be mandatory or examining as to whether the
condition imposed by the Tender Inviting Authority is

27
onerous, neigh, miserable to perform and under
what circumstances, such conditions were imposed
are also in fact within the scope of judicial review.

Many factors would have gone into the decision-
making process as such sufficient leverage will have
to be allowed to the decision-making authority and
same will have to be kept in mind while exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction in such matters.
20. It is trite-law that non-adherence to the
tender conditions by the bidder, Notice Inviting
Authority is not required to entertain such bid.
Whether a condition is essential or collateral could be
ascertained by reference to the consequences of non
compliance thereto. As to what condition is to be
imposed by the Tender Inviting Authority, is always
left to the decision-making authority and Notice
Inviting Authority and it would be proper and safe
course to be adopted by Courts. However, it can only
be said that non-fulfillment of the requirement

28
stipulated, if it would result in rejection of the tender
or in other words, if such non-fulfillment results in
rejection of the tender, then it would necessarily form

an essential part of the tender. This view is fortified
by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of KANHAIYA LAL AGRAWAL VS. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 6 SCC 315
vide paragraph No.6.
21. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LTD., VS. HOTEL
VENUE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS, reported in
(2007) 10 SCC 33 has held that tender terms are
contractual and it is the privilege of the Government
to impose such terms and conditions as it deems fit
in the circumstances, it so desires and Courts would
not have jurisdiction to judge as to how the tender
terms should be framed as it would not prove to be
expensive.
29
22. Keeping these principles in mind, when
facts on hand are examined, it would clearly disclose
that the impugned tender dated 04.01.2018

Annexure-A was issued for supply of four(4) wheeler
auto vehicles for dry waste collection by BBMP. Last
date for uploading queries was 11.01.2018 up to 4:00
p.m. A pre-bid meeting was fixed on 16.01.2018 and
last date for receipt of tender was fixed as 29.01.2018
up to 4:00 p.m. An addendum was issued on
25.01.2018 and last date for uploading the bids was
extended upto 05.02.2018 till 4:00 p.m. Date and
time for opening technical bid was fixed on
07.02.2018 at 4:05 p.m.
23. Writ petitioner in W.P.No.5608/2018
filed writ petition on 03.02.2018 and the other two
writ petitions No.5610/2018 and 5419/2018 though
filed on 03.02.2018 and 02.02.2018 respectively were
not listed and writ petitions which came to be listed
before the Court were W.P.No.5608/2018 and

30
W.P.No.5610/2018. This Court by order dated
06.02.2018 had directed the Tender Inviting
Authority to receive the bids to be submitted by the

petitioners by enabling e-portal and permitted said
petitioners to participate in the tender process
without prejudice to the contentions raised in writ
petitions. Said order reads as under:
“Though the learned senior counsel for

the petitioner raises the contention with
regard to minimum period of 60 days not
being adhered to keeping in view the volume
of the contract, considering the instant
petition is filed within the period as has
been extended through the addendum upto
05.02.2018 and the instant petition had
been filed on 03.02.2018, the respondents
are directed to receive the tender documents
to be submitted by the petitioner by enabling
the e-portal and the petitioner is permitted to
participate in the tender process without
prejudice to the contentions urged in this
regard.
Further learned senior counsel with
reference to the conditions contained in
31
Annexure-F – addendum relating to the

supply of vehicles made earlier would point
out that the requirement for having supplied
only to Government Department/Local
Bodies is arbitrary and without basis.

Hence, the petitioner is permitted to submit
the documents to support the supply of such
number of vehicles in general without
restricting the supply made only
Government Department/Local Bodies, but
to any such purchasers. If such document is
produced by the petitioner and if the
respondents find it appropriate to proceed
with the evaluation without seeking for any
further clarifications from this Court, the
respondents shall take note of the document
submitted by the petitioner and evaluate the
same, also without treating the non supply
to Government Bodies/Local Bodies as a
disability or bar for consideration”.
24. However, they did not submit the tender
on 06.02.2018. The fact remains that writ petitioners
in W.P. Nos.5608/2018 and 5610/2018 did not
submit their tenders either through e-portal or by

32
physical delivery. It has been contended that despite
directions issued by this Court to BBMP to enable the
e-portal for petitioners to participate in tender

process, it was not enabled by BBMP. The fact
remains that these two writ petitioners did not
submit their tenders in physical form at least either
on the same day or on the next day.
25. However, in W.P.No.5491/2018, when
the matter was listed before the Court on 07.02.2018,
writ petitioner therein was also extended the benefit
of order passed in W.P.Nos.5608/2018 and
5610/2018 on 06.02.2018. Order dated 07.02.2018
reads as under:
“Since in similar set of circumstance this

Court had taken note of the contention
insofar as not complying with the
requirement of providing 60 days period in
view of the volume of the contract and had
permitted the petitioners therein also to
upload their tender documents before 4.00
p.m. today i.e., 07.02.2018, the petitioner
33
herein is also granted the liberty of filing

their tender documents before 4.00 p.m.
today i.e., 07.02.2018 without prejudice to
the contentions urged in this petition. In that
view, the respondents shall enable the E-

portal to receive the tender documents.
If the respondents choose to proceed with
the evaluation, the final decision shall not be
taken, if the respondents seek to insist upon
the tender conditions which are indicated
and which are under challenge.”
26. Said writ petition was ordered to be
listed with other two writ petitions viz.,
W.P.Nos.5608/2018 and 5610/2018. Subsequently,
on 12.02.2018, all three writ petitions were taken up
together and interlocutory application I.A.No.2/2018
filed by petitioner in W.P.No.5608/2018 seeking for a
direction to respondent – BBMP to receive the bid
alleging their attempts to upload the tender
documents had not yielded any positive results since
e-portal was not enabled and when petitioner made
an attempt to submit the same in physical form,

34
respondent did not receive. This Court keeping in
mind the order dated 06.02.2018, permitted the
petitioners to submit their bids in physical form and

respondent No.5 – BBMP was directed to receive bid
documents that would be submitted by petitioners
with a condition that it would remain subject to
further consideration. Accordingly, BBMP is said to
have received the bid submitted by the petitioners in
W.P.No.5608/2018 and W.P.No.5491/2018.
Accordingly, the bid submitted by petitioners in
W.P.No.5608/2018 and W.P.No.5491/2018 has been
received and not opened and respondents are
awaiting further orders of this Court in the light of
order passed on 12.02.2018.
27. In the light of aforestated facts and analysis
of case law as discussed herein above, the first
contention raised by learned Senior counsel
appearing for petitioner with regard to the tender

35
conditions require to be considered for the purpose of
rejection for the reasons indicated therein below.

28. A perusal of tender document does not
disclose or indicate even remotely a particular
company or manufacturer is being favoured or would
be the supplier of vehicle called for tender as per
specification, namely, the technical specification
specified under Section 5 under the heading ‘C.
Technical specifications’. Merely because petitioner
in W.P.No.5608/2018 is a manufacturer of a
particular type of three wheeler vehicle and as such,
it claims to have been excluded from tender process
by incorporating a specification under the technical
specification that it should be four wheeler dealer
body auto only, would not be a ground on which the
fault can be found in the tender condition. This Court
cannot loose sight of the fact that vehicle which is
sought to be procured under the tender in question is
for the purpose of disposal of solid waste in the city of

36
Bengaluru which has reached alarming proportion
and requires deft handling and urgent measures to
be adopted for disposal of such solid waste as

otherwise it may result in outbreach of contagious
diseases. It is because of this precise reason, the
original records of BBMP - Corporation has been
perused by this Court and same would disclose that
on occasion more than one, the tender committee
consisting of experts have met, discussed and
resolved as to the specifications which the vehicle
should conform to be procured by BBMP in order to
achieve the object of disposal of solid waste. This
Court is not possessing the requisite expertise to sit
in judgment over the wisdom exercised by experts.
The presumption would be always in favour of
experts who would have applied their mind and
specified the technical details in tender document. In
the instant case, the vehicle which is sought to be
procured and the technical details which can be
briefly stated relate to number of wheels, body

37
specification, front structure, floor structure and
panel, side panel, front panel, roof covering system,
painting, stickering, mike system etc. The micro

details with regard to these technical details would be
definitely in the domain of the experts. In the instant
case, the technical committee having applied its mind
by taking into consideration the various facets, has
resolved to specify the technical conditions and it is
these technical conditions which have been indicated
in the subject tender called for by respondent No.5
and it cannot be found or held as flawed.
29. At the cost of repetition, it requires to
be noticed that tender notification does not specify or
indicate about any particular company having been
indicated or specified. It is no doubt true, in the
original file, there is reference to Tata Motors which
would meet specified conditions. That by itself, would
not exclude other four wheeler cabin load body
vehicles from participating in the tender. As per

38
specification indicated in tender documents as to
whether it is a four wheeler vehicle which is to be
procured or three wheeler vehicle or any other

wheeler vehicle would always be in the domain of
tender inviting authority and as such, this Court
cannot sit in judgment over the experts decision or
act as an appellate authority to examine as to
whether such decision was just and proper or right.
In that view of the matter, this Court does not find
any merit in the contention raised by learned senior
counsel appearing for petitioner and contention
raised in that regard stands rejected.
30. Insofar as second contention with
regard to the attack on additional condition imposed
under addendum at Annexure-‘F’, it would be apt and
appropriate to note the existing condition in the bid
document and the changes made in the addendum
reads as under:
39
No Sect Description as per bid Changes made to bid document

-ion document
&
Cla
use
No
the last any
three years Government

departments
/ Local
bodies in the
last three
years.
Sec. 2. The Should have 2. The Bidders Should have
III Bidders in supplied in case of supplied
Poin case of satisfactoril Authorized satisfactorily
t Authorized y minimum representative/ minimum
B2. representative 170 no’s 4 Consortium 170 no’s 4
Exp /Consortium wheeler with wheeler or 3
erie with Auto Authorized wheeler
nce Authorized vehicles representative Auto
Crit representative similar to as lead vehicles/Aut
eria as lead the type member o Tippers
member specified in similar to the
the type specified
Schedule of in the
Requiremen Schedule of
ts as per Requirement
tender or s as per
any similar tender or any
vehicle to similar
any vehicle to any
Government Government
department Departments
s/Local / Local
bodies in bodies in the
the last last three
three years years.
31. For the simple reason that contentions
raised under point number one has been answered
against the petitioner, this issue also deserves to be
answered against petitioner. However, additional
reason which requires to be assigned for rejection of
said contention in this regard for ascertaining the

40
said addendum would be the fact BBMP, having
undertaken to dispose off the solid waste generated in
various parts of Bengaluru City, would be in a

position to ascertain the capability and capacity of
the bidders and it is in this background under
addendum, the condition with regard to the suppliers
furnishing proof of having supplied 170 Nos. four-
wheelers or three wheelers vehicles or auto-tippers to
any government agency in the last three years, has
been incorporated in order to obtain a first hand
information. At the threshold, it requires to be
noticed that petitioners claim to have supplied similar
number of vehicles to the contractors who have now
been engaged by BBMP and as such, they are
contending any information in that regard can be
ascertained by the BBMP itself and thereby this
condition in the addendum should not be insisted,
insofar as the petitioner is concerned cannot be
accepted. The tender inviting authority cannot
undertake the exercise to search and find out as to

41
whether a particular bidder has supplied the type of
vehicle to a contractor and mere furnishing of the list
by petitioner of such supply of the vehicles to

different contractors would not absolve the bidders to
furnish the certificate in proof of same having been
supplied and such certificate would be an essential
term of the tender. As such, this Court cannot find
fault with the tender inviting authority imposing such
condition. Hence, the second contention raised by the
learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner also
deserves to be rejected and it stands rejected.
32. Insofar as third contention with regard
to infraction of Rule 17 is concerned, it would be
necessary to extract the said Rule for immediate
reference and it reads:
“17. Minimum time for submission of

tenders. – (1) The Tender Inviting Authority
shall ensure that adequate time is provided
for the submission of tenders and a
minimum time is allowed between date of
publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in
42
the relevant Tender Bulletin the last date

for submission of tenders. This minimum
period shall be as follows.-
(a) for tenders upto rupees two

crores in value, thirty days; and
(b) for tenders in excess of
rupees two crores in value, sixty
days.
(2) Any reduction in the time stipulated

under sub-rule (1) has to be specifically
authorized by an authority superior to the
Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be
recorded in writing.”
33. A bare reading of Rule 17 would clearly
indicate that tender inviting authority should ensure
that adequate time is provided to the bidders for
submission of their tender and the minimum time to
be allowed between the date of publication and notice
inviting tender while publishing the same either in
the bulletin or in the e-portal. Clause (a) of sub-
rule(1) of Rule 17 would prescribe 30 days as the
minimum time for tenders value up to two crores and

43
tenders in excess of two crores, the time prescribed is
60 days. However, sub-rule (2) enables the authority
superior to the tender inviting authority to reduce the

time stipulated under sub-rule (1) and while
undertaking such an exercise, the tender inviting
authority has to record reasons in writing. Sub-rule
(2) of Rule 17 does not indicate that reasons by the
superior authority should be elaborate. In other
words, if the order or the noting in the file would
disclose that there is due application of mind by the
superior authority for reducing the time stipulated
under sub-rule (1), it would meet the test prescribed
under sub-rule (2). Thus, there cannot be any
straight jacket formula prescribed for the manner in
which the reasons are to be recorded by the superior
authority to reduce the time prescribed under sub-
rule (1) of Rule 17. There might be complex situations
and myriad circumstances under which the superior
authority exercise the power for reducing the time. By

44
way of illustrations, the following examples can
illuminate as to why such direction has been given:

Illustrations:
(a) In case, a water channel being required to be
built on emergent basis due to floods or excessive rise
of water where the life and property are at stake, the
superior authority in such circumstances, though the
value of tender is more than what is prescribed under
(a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 17, can exercise the
power to reduce the prescribed time.
(b) Whereas an electric transformer gets burnt
down due to nature out burst either at a hospital,
Railway Station or any public place is located, it may
require urgent attention and in such circumstances,
where the value of such procurement being more
than the value prescribed under (a) and (b) of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 17, the superior authority would be
empowered to reduce the time prescribed under sub-
rule (1) in exercise of its power under sub-rule (2) by

45
recording the reasons in brief. In such
circumstances, the decision so arrived at by the
superior authority cannot be found fault with.

34. Keeping the aforestated illustrations in
mind, when facts on hand are examined, as noticed
herein above, records would disclose that saga of
inviting the subject tender relates back to the year
2016. As noticed herein above, the Government order
dated 12.08.2016 and 03.11.2016, would disclose
that a sum of Rs.30.60 crores was ear-marked for
purchase of auto-tipper (four-wheeler) for the purpose
of disposal of solid waste, namely, 600 auto-tippers.
Since there was a scheme for implementing the solid
waste management between BBMP and Social
Welfare/NGO organizations in the ratio of 75:25, the
BBMP was required to procure 555 vehicles for
disposal of solid waste in the city of Bengaluru. In
this regard, a proposal was put-up way back in the
year 2016 for purchase of said vehicles in the

46
financial year 2016-17 and 2017-18 for a sum of
Rs.1530 lakhs in each year, by ear-marking the said
amount to be utilized for the purpose of purchase of

555 vehicles. Though the proposal has been put-up
and on 09.03.2017, there was no indication with
regard to floating of the tender since it was resolved
to purchase the said vehicle from a single window
agency, same was not accepted by the appropriate
Government and in this regard, the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development Department by
communication dated 26.04.2017, called upon the
Commissioner, BBMP to submit a fresh proposal and
it is thereafter, a fresh proposal came to be put-up
and it was resolved to procure the said auto-tipper
vehicles at a cost of Rs.28.13 crores and for the first
time, a note was put up by the Assistant Executive
Engineer, Solid waste Management and
Environmental Engineer of BBMP to call for short
term tender. The note relating to the same has been
perused by this Court by scrutinizing the original file

47
and reason/noting at paragraphs 10 to 15 when read
meticulously together, it does not disclose as to the
reason that has been assigned for reducing the time.

Infact first respondent herein by communication
dated 19.08.2017 addressed to Commissioner –
BBMP has passed following query amongst other
queries and it reads:
1 xxxx
2 xxxx
3 xxxx
4 xxxx
5. mÉAqÀgï PÀgz
É g
À É PÀrªÉÄ zÀgz
À °
À è ¹UÀÄªÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ §UÉÎ
AiÉÆÃa¸À¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
35. Whether chances of getting vehicles in
question for a lesser price is there, if tender is called
for?
36. By reply dated 11.09.2017, second
respondent has intimated first respondent that it was
already resolved by technical committee to purchase
vehicles by quotation and four (4) persons have
quoted the prices of vehicles and for outer-model,

48
tender would be called for. No direct answer is given
to the query raised by first respondent. Infact, at
paragraph No.15(4) of the noting while seeking

approval of letter being forwarded to first respondent,
officers of second respondent have stated to the
following effect:
“4. EvÀgÃÉ CUÀvÀå ªÀiÁ¥ÁðqÀÄUÀ½UÉ (¨Ár/gÀZ£

À ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¤«Äð¸À®Ä, zsÀé¤ ªÀzsð
À PÀ ªÀåª¸
À ÉÜ ºÁUÀÆ ¹ÖPÀjAUï
PÁAiÀÄð) ªÀiÁvÀæ C¯Áàª¢
À ü mÉAqÀgï PÀgAÉ iÀÄ®Ä
C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£.É ”
37. When this proposal was sent to the
appropriate government, it was not approved or in
other words, by communication dated 15.09.2017,
the Principal Secretary addressed a letter to the
Commissioner BBMP that issue had been placed
before expert committee which examined this issue
and it was resolved to issue a direction to the
Commissioner to refer the same to the technical
committee of BBMP and to furnish details with regard
to purchase of the said vehicles under The Karnataka

49
Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The
resolution of expert committee has been extracted by
the Principal Secretary, Urban Development

Department in the said communication dated
15.09.2017 and it reads as under:
¤tðAiÀÄ: “DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ©.©.JA.¦. gÀªg

À À ¥À¸
æ ÁÛª£
À AÉ iÀÄ §UÉÎ
C¢üPÁgÀAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸À«Äw ¸ÀÄsÉ iÀÄ°è PÀÆ®APÀÄµÀªÁV
ZÀað¹ CAwªÀÄªÁV PÉ.n.¦.¦. PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ
»£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è 565 DmÉÆÃ n¥ÀàgïUÀ¼À CªÀ±ÀåPÀv,É
DmÉÆÃ n¥ÀàgïUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ
PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ E¤ßvÀgÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À §UÉÎ WÀ£vÀ Áådå
¤ªÀðºÀuAÉ iÀÄ dAn DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄRå
C©üAiÀÄAvÀgg
À ÀÄ ¥ÀÆtð «ªÀgU
À ¼
À ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À
C¢üPÁgÀAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸À«Äw ¸ÀÄsÉ iÀÄ°è «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄAr¸À®Ä ©.©.JA.¦.UÉ ¸ÀÆa¹ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ (Deffered)”.
38. On receipt of said communication, office
of respondent No.2 has put a note for approval to call
for short term tender i.e., 15 days vide paragraphs 25
to 28 of note sheet and it reads:

50
“3 . WÀ£À ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ 2016-17 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2017-18£ÉÃ

¸Á°UÉ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ WÀ£vÀ Áådå ¤ªÀðºÀuU
É ÁV MzÀV¹gÀÄªÀ
C£ÀÄzÁ£Àª£
À ÀÄß ªÀiÁZïð-2018 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ¸ÀzÀâ¼PÀ É
ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÃÉ PÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ

C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤jÃQë¹ 15 ¢£ÀU¼
À À ¥ÀZ
æ ÁgÀ CªÀ¢ü ¤Ãr
C¯Áàª¢
À ü mÉAqÀgï DºÁé¤¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£.É ”
39. Above note has been approved by
Superintendent Engineer, Chief Engineer and Joint
Commissioner and Commissioner on 28.12.2017.
Though, approval to call for short term tender was to
be accorded by Government, same has not been
obtained.
40. In this background, the purported
approval of superior authority to call for short-term
tender by Notice Inviting Authority namely, the
Executive engineer, Superintendent engineer, Joint
Commissioner and Commissioner would recede to the
background. Even otherwise, as already discussed
herein above, reasons for reduction of time need not

51
be elaborate or detailed reason is required to be given
by superior authority. Even reasons recorded in brief
for reduction of time would suffice as noticed herein

above. The notice inviting authority may in certain
circumstances explain the reasons in the note sheet
giving elaborate reasons or reasons in brief as to
what is the necessity for calling for a short-term
tender or in other words, as to why the time
prescribed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 is to be
reduced by the superior authority. If such reasons
are assigned in the note put-up by the Notice Inviting
Authority for being approved by the superior
authority and in such circumstances, if the superior
authority exercise the power and approves such note
though not with elaborate reasons, it would definitely
meet the criteria prescribed under sub-rule (2) of
Rule 17. However, in the instant case as noticed
herein above, neither the note put-up by the Notice
Inviting Authority nor the approval by superior
authority to the Notice Inviting Authority would

52
disclose such exercise having been undertaken. In
fact, the reason assigned in paragraph No.15(4)
calling for short term tender, if perused, the only

irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is, it is no
reason at all inasmuch as it is stated for purpose of
specifying the technical details with regard to body
building of the vehicle, fixing of sound system and
skickering work, tender is to be called for by way of
short term and not for purchase of the vehicles in
question at all. That apart, the superior authority
which has approved the note of Notice Inviting
Authority is for approving the project. In fact, that is
to call for procurement of the vehicles for being used
in disposal of solid waste management. There is no
reason whatsoever forthcoming from the file, either
the Notice Inviting Authority having specified the
reasons or assigned the reasons for calling for short-
term tender or the superior authority having applied
its mind to reduce the time. The exception cannot
become a rule. The superior authority has no doubt

53
power to reduce the time. There should be application
of mind for reduction of time. The expression
“application of mind” and “reasons to be assigned”

may vary from case to case and would also take its
colour and texture depending upon the terrain in
which the circumstances may travel or arise.
41. In the instant case, as noticed herein
above, neither such application of mind can be
discerned from the note sheet nor from the order by
superior authority. In fact, it would be apt and
appropriate to note, at this juncture itself, that
communication from the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Department to BBMP dated 06.11.2017,
BBMP has been called upon to furnish a fresh
proposal with regard to calling for short-term tender
and its necessity. However, the records would
disclose neither the appropriate Government having
been informed of the further steps taken by the
BBMP nor a fresh proposal having been forwarded to

54
the appropriate Government by BBMP as directed
under communication dated 06.11.2017 as noticed
herein above. Infact BBMP has taken a completely

different route by referring the same to the technical
committee and by order dated 04.01.2018 passed by
the Chief Engineer, it has resolved to purchase
565 Nos. four-wheeler vehicle. Though there is a
reference to a direction issued by the appropriate
Government under the letter dated 06.11.2017
(which has been wrongly and erroneously referred to
as 06.11.2015, in the note sheet which may also be a
typographical error), the fact remains that there was
a direction issued by the appropriate Government on
06.11.2017 to BBMP to re-submit a proposal
including the reasons for calling short-term tender.
No steps having been taken pursuant to it, the order
dated 04.01.2018, passed by Chief Engineer who
undisputedly is the superior authority to the Notice
Inviting Authority, would also not find a whisper or a
reference for the reason to reduce the time prescribed

55
under sub-rule (1) of Rule 17, namely, as to why he
was exercising the power under sub-rule (2) of Rule
17 to dispense with the prescribed time or as to why

the time is to be reduced.
42. For these reasons, the subject tender or
the impugned tender notification called for by
reducing the time is clearly arbitrary and whimsical
and there is total non-application of mind and second
respondent and its officers have acted contrary to the
directions issued by the appropriate Government as
could be seen from the original records. Hence,
tender notification cannot be sustained. The
consequential question which would arise is as to
whether the existing contractors are to be allowed to
be continued or not. However, the said issue not
being in the domain of this Court, only an
observation can be made by permitting BBMP to take
such steps as it deems fit in the circumstances of the
case and no opinion is expressed in that regard and

56
at the cost of repetition, it is made clear that
Commissioner-BBMP would be at liberty to take
appropriate decision to meet the exigencies that may

arise in the solid waste management.
43. Hence, the following order:
(i) Writ Petitions are hereby allowed in

part subject to observations made
herein above.
(ii) Tender notification No.EE3/SWM-

1/TEND/03/2017-18 at Anenxure-‘C’
in W.P.No.5608/2018; Annexure-‘A’
in W.P.No.5610/2018 and
Annexure-‘A’ in W.P.No.5491/2018 is
hereby quashed.
(iii) Second respondent – Commissioner –

BBMP and/or competent officer
would be at liberty to call for fresh
tender in accordance with The
Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 and
Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Rules, 2000.
57
Ordered accordingly.
All pending applications stands consigned to

records.
SD/-
JUDGE
PYR/dn

5 C 75 D 6 F 5 B 338 D 11 Fe 905 B 4 B 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 C 75 D 6 F 5 B 338 D 11 Fe 905 B 4 B 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.5608 OF 2018 (GM-TEN)

WRIT PETITION NOS.5491 OF 2018 & 5610 OF 2018

(By Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Advocate for

1. The Principal Secretary to

Urban Development Department,

Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

3. The Special Commissioner (SWM)

4. The Joint Commissioner (Health & MSW)

5. The Executive Engineer-3

(By Sri.Vijaya Kumar Patil, AGA for R1

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

notification dated 04.01.2018 issued by 3rd respondent

Sri. C.R. Veeranarayana Chary

(By Sri. Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Advocate for

1. The State of Karnataka

3. The Joint Commissioner(Health and MSW)

4. The Executive Engineer 3, SWM-1

(By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Patil AGA for R1

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

respondent No.3 to extend the time to submit the bids as

(By Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Advocate for

1. The Principal Secretary to the

3. The Special Commissioner (SWM)

4. The Joint Commissioner (Health & MSW)

5. The Executive Engineer-3,

(By Sri.Vijaya Kumar Patil, AGA for R1

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

These Writ Petitions coming on for “Dictating

As per the Government Orders dated 21.06.2016

and 12.08.2016, BBMP had resolved to purchase

auto tippers for collection of solid waste from different

wards and micro plan was prepared ward-wise to

collect the solid waste for two days in a week. For

said purpose, it was resolved to purchase 555

numbers of auto tipper for the financial year 2016-

2017 and 2017-2018 for a sum of Rs.1530 lakhs for

each year earmarked and as such during March

2007, BBMP being alive of perennial problems of

Solid Waste Management was conscious of this fact

and for the reason that financial year was coming to

an end, it resolved to purchase 555 numbers of auto

tipper (4 wheeler) at a time.

2. BBMP was also of the opinion that Tata Ace

2.0 cubic meter Box Tipper-B.S 4 model is an ideal

vehicle since that was the only four wheeler vehicle as

per B.S 4 norms available. Original records would

also disclose that as on 01.03.2017, BBMP had called

upon suppliers of Tata vehicles to quote their prices

for supply of vehicle to BBMP and it was received by

email as extracted in the note sheet dated

09.03.2017. At that point of time, BBMP resolved to

bring in certain amendment to its requirements of

vehicle. Accordingly, it was resolved to purchase 555

vehicles at a cost of Rs.28,45,47,945/- and

evaluation charges to be paid to such agency, who

undertakes such evaluation at the rate of 0.15% +

12.36% service tax, in all for a sum of Rs.3,49,435/-.

Thus, total cost for purchase of said vehicles was

Rs.28,48,97,380/-, was sought to be utilized from the