IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.29024 OF 2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
A.L. Satish Kumar, Son of Late Anchilingappa, 46 years, Residing at No.369, 7th Cross, Lakshmi Road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027.
(By Sri. Sanjay Gowda N.S., Advocate) AND:
1. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, By its Commissioner, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001.
… Petitioner 2. The Executive Engineer – I, Solid Waste Management – 1, Office of the Executive Engineer – 1, SWM-1, 3rd Floor, Annex-2 Building, BBMP Head Office Premises, NR Square, Bengaluru – 560 002.
3. Manjunatha Enterprises, By its Proprietor Sri.A.Manjunatha, No.172, 4th Cross, B.Chandrappa Nagar, Audugodi, Bengaluru – 560 030.
…Respondents (By Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, Advocate for R1 and R2; Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Counsel a/w Sri.Yeshu Mishra, Advocate for R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to hold that the Bid of the R-3 is liable to be rejected as being non responsive for not quoting any sum towards ‘Management Fee” in his financial bids submitted in respect of tender at Annexure – C2 and tender at Annexure – A dated 18.01.2019 by R-2 and consequentially and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Sanjay Gowda.N.S, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, learned Senior counsel along with Sri.Yeshu Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a direction to the BBMP to reject the bid submitted by respondent No.3 on the ground that the same is non-responsive.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the defect in the bid of respondent No.3, petitioner has submitted an objection and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Tender Evaluating Committee to consider the objection which has been preferred by the petitioner while evaluating the bids of the tenderers.
5. At this stage, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 also be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the decision is taken with regard to responsiveness of its bid.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 shall be heard while evaluating the bids and before any final decision is taken in the matter.
7. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that while evaluating the bids, the Tender Evaluating Authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 and thereafter, shall decide the matter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-