Rules cannot be changed after tender process: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Changing the rules of the game after the completion of the tender process is not fair play, the High Court of Karnataka has said, directing the District Sand Monitoring Committee, Mangaluru to consider the bid of one Rajeeva without insisting on a minimum of 0.5 acre of stockyard requirement.

The e-tender auction for sand mining in Arala village in Bantwal taluk was held on December 13, 2019. Rajeeva had participated in it.

On December 29, 2021, the Committee declared him ineligible to bid as he did not have a stockyard of a minimum of 0.5 acres. However, this clause was added after the tender process was completed.

Rajeeva approached the HC alleging that the “entire exercise of the Committee smacks mala fides as the unrealistic requirement was imposed only to do the favour to the favourable bidder.”

He also claimed that the Committee was not the competent authority to change the rules. The HC bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil who heard the petition in their recent judgement said, “The respondent - authorities have changed the rules of the game once the game has begun and such an attempt on the part of the respondent - authorities is illegal and arbitrary.”

Further, the HC said, “The element of fair play is a mandatory requirement in the decision-making process of the Committee and in the absence of any such element, the action of the Committee can be termed as arbitrary.”

The HC found that though the writ jurisdiction was rarely used in contractual cases, this case provided a reason.

“In the instant case, the entire process adopted by respondent No.2 is contrary to the element of fair play resulting in taking arbitrary decisions on 20.11.2021. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the law and is required to be interfered with by this Court,” it said.

The HC also found that the Chairman of the Committee had changed the rules even when the other members pointed out its absence.

“Such an action of the Chairman even without the concurrence of other members is not only arbitrary, illegal, irrational but also amounts to colourable exercise of power,” the HC said.

Setting aside the resolution of the Committee disqualifying Rajeeva, the HC ordered, “The respondent No.2 - Committee is directed to consider the bid of the petitioner without insisting for 0.50 acres as a stockyard and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”