1 week Ago
Bengaluru: A change in a tender condition is a permissible exercise of power under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules , 2000, the high court observed in a recent judgement. "Rule 14 permits the tender inviting authority, at any time after the issue of tender and before opening the tender, to make any changes, modifications, or amendments. The rider is that intimation of such change should be made known to all those who are participating in the tender," Justice Nagaprasanna said in his order while rejecting the petitions filed by KB Kumar, a class 1 contractor from Mysuru city.
You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The issue involved is the construction of a lift irrigation structure near Devanuru village in Nanjangud taluk, Mysuru district. Kumar submitted his tender on Sept 25, 2024, the last date for submission of bids. On the same day, the last date was extended till Sept 30, 2024, by way of a corrigendum.
The corrigendum also modified certain criteria. Kumar submitted a revised bid on Sept 27, 2024, and one S Narayan Reddy, another class 1 contractor, also submitted his bid. Thereafter, Kumar challenged the extension of time granted and modifications in the criteria.
He argued that these changes are contrary to rules as the corrigendum was issued on the directions of the superintending engineer even though the executive engineer was the competent authority. On the other hand, the govt defended that the financial criteria were not changed and added that the last date was extended as Kumar was the only bidder prior to the extension of the period by five days. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the five-day window (extended period) was a reasonable extension, which was made uniformly applicable to all bidders and was availed by them, including the petitioner.
"The contention that it infringes upon the statutory rule is a figment of the imagination of the petitioner. In that light, the subject issue also goes against the petitioner. The submission of arbitrariness or statutory aberration, as argued by the petitioner, is nowhere found in the present case," the judge added while dismissing the petition.
.
