M/S.S.K.Madar vs. Karnataka Vishwa Vidyalaya

Held

The Court held that it would not interfere with the decision of the respondent University in awarding the contract. The Court reasoned that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and malafides, not to assess the soundness of a decision. Citing the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa, the Court emphasized that in contractual matters, if the decision is bona fide and in the public interest, courts will not interfere even if there are procedural aberrations. The Court found that the award of the tender to respondents 3 and 4 was bona fide and in the public interest, considering the nature of the work (cleaning and sanitization) and the fact that the tender was awarded to the lowest bidders. Furthermore, with nine months of the 12-month contract already elapsed, interfering at this stage would not be proper. The Court also noted that the petitioners had suppressed material facts by not disclosing previous writ petitions challenging the tender notification. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s S.K. Madar and M/s Kanipakam Gajana Service, challenged the allotment of e-procurement tenders for manpower supply by Karnataka Vishwa Vidyalaya, Dharwad (KUD) to respondents 3 and 4. The tenders were for cleaning and sanitization services for a period of 12 months. The petitioners argued that the allotment was illegal and arbitrary, contrary to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, and Rules, 2000. They sought to quash the work orders issued to respondents 3 and 4 and for a fresh tender to be called. The University contended that the tenders were finalized and work orders issued before the interim order and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under the Act. The University also stated that respondents 3 and 4 were the lowest bidders and their tenders were accepted in the interest of the University, despite an initial opinion to recall the tenders due to urgency.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allotment of e-procurement tenders for manpower supply to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by the Karnataka Vishwa Vidyalaya, Dharwad, was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, and the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000? - Petitioner's contention: The allotment was illegal and arbitrary, violating the transparency principles. They sought to declare the allotment void and for a fresh tender. - Revenue/State's contention: The tender was finalized and work orders issued prior to the interim order. The petitioners have an alternative remedy under the Act. Respondents 3 and 4 were the lowest bidders and their tenders were accepted in the University's interest due to urgency. The University's decision was bona fide and in public interest. 2. Whether the Court should interfere in the decision of the respondent University in awarding the contract, considering the nature of the work, the elapsed time, and the principle of public interest over individual interest? - Petitioner's contention: Implicitly argued for interference due to alleged illegality and arbitrariness. - Revenue/State's contention: The Court should not sit in appeal over the University's decision, which was neither arbitrary nor irrational. The public interest should prevail, and interference is not warranted, especially given the elapsed time and the nature of the short-term contract.