IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.52630 OF 2018 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI. BETTAYYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR KUNIGAL BYPASS ROAD NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
(By Ms. SARITHA A.L. ADV., FOR Mr. SRINIVASA S.B. ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY … PETITIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE CHAIRMAN/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TENDER SCRUTINY COMMITTEE PDS FOOD GRAINS RETAIL TRANSPORTATION RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159.
5. SRI. B.P. MAHESH S/O PUTTANANJAPPA M/S. CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY LORRY SERVICES BETTADHALSURU HOBLI YELAHANKA POST BANGALORE-64 … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VIJAY KUAR A. PATIL, LEARNED AGA FOR R1 TO R4 Mr. SHIVAPRASAD SANTANAGONDAR, ADV., FOR R5) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 31-10-2018 issued by the R-4 copy of which is produced at Annexure-F rejecting the technical Bid of the petitioner and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process for Channapatna Taluk and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Smt.Saritha A.L., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Srinivasa S.B., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Sri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
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 seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the endorsement dated 31.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.4 by which technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected.
4. After arguing the matter to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), by filing an appeal. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act before the competent authority. Needless to state that in case such an appeal is filed, the same shall be disposed expeditiously after hearing the parties.
Sd/- JUDGE RV