High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 01 KAR CK 0238

M/S. RELIANCE INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION vs THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, & ORS.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 12 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Budihal R.B.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
4768 of 2015 (GM-TEN)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 267 words
1.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated October 15, 2015, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No.48347 of 2014.

2.

By the order impugned, the decision of the appellate authority under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short ''the said Act''), was set aside.

3.

The writ petitioner -respondent No.4 was a successful tenderer. He submitted the lowest bid. Consequently, the Tender Scrutiny Committee accepted the offer of the writ petitioner. One of the stipulation in the tender document was that Indian Standards Institute Certificate was mandatory.

4.

It is true that the writ petitioner did not submit Indian Standards Institute Certificate, but produced CE Certificate issued by Eurotech Assessment and Certification Services.

5.

The Hon''ble Single Judge was right that the appellate authority under the said Act, mechanically, set aside the decision of the Tender Scrutiny Committee only because there was no Indian Standards Institute Certificate submitted by the tenderer.

6.

When a certificate of equal standard is submitted and the Tender Scrutiny Committee has accepted that certificate, it was not necessary for the appellate authority to interfere in the matter.

7.

Consequently, we are of the opinion that the Hon''ble Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition in upsetting the order of the appellate authority.

8.

We do not find any merit in the writ appeal.

9.

The writ appeal is, summarily, dismissed.

10.

In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, I.A.No.I of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.

11.

We make no order as to costs.