IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50306/2019(GM-TEN) M/S ASHRAYA CONSTRUCTION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.908, ‘D’ 19TH MAIN, 19TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES, RAJARAJESWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.D.S.CHANDRU.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHANTH A. V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ALSO APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 2 . KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, NO.8, MSB-1, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 26.09.2019 DISQUALIFYING THE PETITIONER FROM THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE TENDERS FOR (i) CONSTRUCTION OF BRARS COMPLEX AT VAKKALERI, KOLAR TALUK AND (ii) CONSTRUCTION OF BRARS COMPLEX AT LAKKUR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner, who is the Contractor is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.9.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent disqualifying him from the Technical Evaluation of the tenders for construction of Brars Complex at Vakkaleri, Kolar Taluk and at Lakkur, Kolar Taluk and Kolar District as per Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification and is qualified as per Clause-3 of the tender document as he has satisfactorily completed Building work of value not less than Rs.1,870.00 lakhs, still the 2nd respondent has proceeded to disqualify him.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Clause-3 at Annexure-D, prescribes that Approved Revised Project Cost Rs.1873.53 lakhs (including Price Variation amount) and aggrieved by the said order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, but the 1st respondent is not proceeding with the appeal. In the meantime, if the 2nd respondent proceeds in pursuance of the disqualification of the petitioner from the Technical Evaluation, the very purpose for which the appeal is filed will be frustrated. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. Sri Nagaiah, learned Counsel on taking notice for respondent No.2 submits that the document now produced before this Court as per Annexure-D, the alleged Approved Revised Project Costs Rs.1873.53 lakhs of the petitioner, has not been placed before the 2nd respondent-Committee and has not uploaded the tender documents which are the disputed facts.
5. Since the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, suffice it to direct the 1st respondent-Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits strictly in accordance with law after giving a opportunity to both the parties to the lis.
6. In the meanwhile, if the 2nd respondent proceeds further, the very purpose of filing the appeal will be frustrated. Therefore, till the appeal is disposed of by the 1st respondent, the interest of the petitioner will have to be safeguarded.
7. On taking notice for respondent No.1, Sri K. Dilip Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that the Appellate Authority will decide the appeal, if already filed by the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said submission is placed on record.
8. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is suffice to direct the 1st respondent- Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the 2nd respondent shall not precipitate further in pursuance of the proceedings dated 26.9.2019.
9. Accordingly, with the above observations, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-