IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.40620 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. D. N. JOSHI AND CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, #14, "SRISAMARTHA", 60 FEET ROAD, PATTEGARAPALYA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 079, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI DINESH KUMAR N. … PETITIONER (By Mr. MANOHAR N, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION IN KARNATAKA, (KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL DATA SOCIETY), 1-4, 6TH FLOOR, IT PARK, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-560 010.
2. THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NO.435, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (FINANCE) DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VV TOWER, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y D HARSHA AGA FOR R1 TO R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to order the respondents to consider the petitioner firm by allotting full marks as per point No.8 at Column No.11 – evaluation and proposal at Annexure-A and consider the petitioner as one of the selection of CA firms for interim and financial audit as per the tender and , and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Manohar N., learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order the respondents to consider the petitioner firm by allotting full marks as per point No.8 at Column No.11 – evaluation of proposal at Annexure-A and consider the petitioner as one of the selected of CA firms for interim and Financial Audit as per the tender.
b) Grant such other relief/s, which this Hon’lbe High Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.”
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal on 03.08.2018 before the Appellate Authority under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. However, the aforesaid appeal has not been decided till today and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously by a speaking order. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that suitable action shall be taken for deciding the appeal in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Sd/- JUDGE RV