Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V.P. Enterprises, a proprietary concern dealing in laboratory equipment, consumables, and chemicals, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. The petitioner sought to quash a paper publication dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure-C) and an impugned notification dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure-D) issued by the respondent, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Hubballi. The petitioner contended that the respondent had called for tenders for supply of laboratory equipment, and the petitioner had submitted its bid. However, the respondent subsequently cancelled the tender and issued a fresh notification, which the petitioner alleged was arbitrary and mala fide. The respondent argued that the cancellation was due to administrative reasons and in public interest. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner failed to establish any arbitrariness or mala fides in the respondent's decision. The court noted that the authority has the discretion to cancel a tender if it is in public interest or for valid reasons, and the petitioner's mere apprehension of bias was insufficient to warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Tender Cancellation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court examined whether the respondent's decision to cancel the tender and issue a fresh notification was arbitrary or mala fide. Held that the petitioner failed to establish any arbitrariness or mala fides, and the respondent's decision was within its contractual discretion. (Paras 1-10)
B) Contract Law - Tender Process - Cancellation of Tender - No specific Act - The court considered the principles governing cancellation of tenders, emphasizing that the authority has the discretion to cancel a tender if it is in public interest or if there are valid reasons. Held that the respondent's decision to cancel the tender was not arbitrary and was based on valid considerations. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of a tender and issuance of a fresh tender notification by the respondent was arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Tender cancellation
- Arbitrariness
- Mala fides
- Judicial review of contractual matters
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (09) 20
WP No. 105292 of 2024 (GM-TEN)
Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath (for petitioner), Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni (for respondent)
V.P. Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, Manjaappa S/o. Nagappa Marahonnappanavar
Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, P.B. Road, Vidyanagar, Hubballi, Karnataka-580022, by its Director
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging cancellation of tender and issuance of fresh notification.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of paper publication dated 09.07.2024 and impugned notification dated 08.07.2024 issued by the respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the respondent arbitrarily cancelled the tender and issued a fresh notification, causing prejudice to the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the cancellation of the tender and issuance of fresh notification by the respondent was arbitrary and mala fide?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under writ jurisdiction?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent's decision to cancel the tender and issue a fresh notification was arbitrary and without any valid reason, and that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of being awarded the contract.
Respondent contended that the cancellation was due to administrative reasons and in public interest, and that the authority has the discretion to cancel a tender.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any arbitrariness or mala fides in the respondent's decision to cancel the tender. The authority has the discretion to cancel a tender if it is in public interest or for valid reasons, and the court should not interfere with such decisions under writ jurisdiction unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
Judgment Excerpts
The prayer sought in the Writ Petition to quash the paper publication dated 09.07.2024 issued by the respondent at Annexure-C and also the impugned notification dated 08.07.2024 issued by the respondent at Annexure-D and grant such other relief as deems fit in the interest of justice.
The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before this Court while invoking the writ jurisdiction is that the petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on the business of laboratory equipments, consumables and chemicals to the hospitals and diagnostic laboratories within the State of Karnataka.
It is the case of the petitioner that the tenders across State are called for each equipment or department
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date, heard and reserved for orders on 25.09.2024, and pronounced on the same day.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
