Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Karnataka Court Criticizes ‘Arbitrary Action’ in Tender Cancellation: Upholds Lowest Bidder’s Rights

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has quashed the cancellation of a tender for the procurement of Sandranol perfumery item by Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (KSDL). The bench, presided by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, ruled in favor of Bannari Constructions, the lowest bidder, and directed KSDL to conclude the tender process and award the contract to the petitioner within 15 days. The judgment criticized the arbitrary and inconsistent application of tender conditions by KSDL, notably the post facto introduction of a requirement for a manufacturer’s authorization letter.

Facts of the Case: Bannari Constructions, a supplier of Sandranol, participated in a tender floated by KSDL on October 14, 2023. The tender process included a pre-bid meeting on January 13, 2024, and subsequent modifications. Bannari Constructions submitted its bid on January 25, 2024, and was declared the lowest bidder (L1) after the financial bids were opened. However, KSDL canceled the tender on March 7, 2024, citing Bannari Constructions’ failure to submit a manufacturer’s authorization letter, a condition introduced only after the financial bids were opened. This prompted Bannari Constructions to challenge the cancellation in court.

Arbitrariness in Tender Process: The High Court found the cancellation of the tender by KSDL to be arbitrary and motivated by a complaint from the second lowest bidder. The court observed that the requirement for a manufacturer’s authorization letter was introduced after the opening of financial bids, which was not stipulated in the initial tender conditions. “The breakneck speed at which the respondents have proceeded the matter would completely be contrary to tenets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked.

Judicial Review and Fair Play: Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted the necessity for judicial review in administrative actions to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgments in Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka, the court emphasized that while the judiciary does not interfere in the decision-making process of tender authorities, it must intervene when the process is arbitrary and lacks fairness.

Manufacturer’s Authorization Letter: The court noted that the petitioner, Bannari Constructions, had a history of supplying Sandranol to KSDL without any prior requirement for a manufacturer’s authorization letter. The introduction of this condition after the financial bids were opened was deemed unjust and unreasonable. “It is ununderstandable as to how this condition could emerge long after the opening of the financial bid while the said amendment takes the clock back to the submission of the bid,” the judgment stated.

Evidence of Compliance: Bannari Constructions produced the necessary authorization letters from Associate Allied Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., both dated 15-01-2024 and 19-03-2024, confirming their role as the manufacturer. Despite this, KSDL continued to dispute the authenticity of the manufacturer, a stance the court found to be baseless and indicative of arbitrary action.

Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “The action on the face of it is arbitrary. A successful bidder is trying to be driven away by an action which on the face of it is arbitrary.”

The High Court’s decision to quash the cancellation of the tender underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring transparency and fairness in public procurement processes. By directing KSDL to award the contract to Bannari Constructions, the judgment reinforces the principle that arbitrary and post facto changes in tender conditions are unacceptable. This ruling is expected to set a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the need for adherence to original tender conditions and preventing misuse of administrative discretion.

Date of Decision: 28th May 2024

M/S. Bannari Constructions vs. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

Similar News