IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NOS.22409-22411/2017 (GM- TEN) BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMAN SATYAPPA KAMTE S/O LATE SATYAPPA KAMTE AGED 59 YEARS PROPRIETOR SAGAR TRANSPORT APMC WEIGH BRIDGE MARKET YARD BELGAUM – 590 001.
2. SOMANAGOUDA FAKIRAGOUDA PATIL S/O LATE FAKIRAGOUDA PATIL AGED 53 YEARS PARTNER GANESH TRANSPORT COMPANY APMC YARD PLOT NO.17 POST AND TALUK: SOUDATHI DISTRICT : BELGAUM – 590 001.
3. B.R.PATIL S/O LATE RAO SAHEB AGED 62 YEARS R/O LAKHANAPUR TALUK: CHIKODI DISTRICT: BELAGAUM – 590 001. (BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD SAKAKARA BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS THE COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WORK ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH TENDER NOTIFICASTION AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.04.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for issuance of work order in accordance with the tender notification. The representations said to have been submitted by the petitioners are at Annexures-A to C.
2. The petitioners have participated in the tender notification for transportation of food grains. The communication dated 17.03.2017 at Annexure-F would indicate that the successful tenderers were called for negotiations to fix the rates of transportation of food grains. The petitioners also state to have participated in the tender as their names are indicated at serial No.26 annexed to the communication dated 17.03.2017. However, since according to the petitioners, rate quoted by them is competitive and since the work order has not been issued to the petitioners, the petitioners have made their representations as at Annexures-A to C. The said representations have not received consideration at the hands of the respondents and in that light the petitioners are before this Court.
3. At this juncture, this Court cannot come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioners have to be awarded the work since there is no material on record to indicate the actual decision taken by the respondents. However, taking note of the consideration dated 17.03.2017 at Annexure-F and the petitioners also being the transporters who have participated in the said process, the representations as submitted by the petitioners still have to be taken note of by the respondents and the decision in that regard will have to be taken, as to whether the work is to be awarded to the petitioners and such consideration will have to be done in expeditious manner.
4. In that view of the matter, a direction is issued to the respondents to take a decision on the representations submitted by the petitioners as at Annexures-A to C. To enable the same, the petitioners shall also submit one more copy of the same along with copy of this order to the respondents. The respondents shall there upon take a decision within four weeks thereof and communicate the same to the petitioners In terms of the above, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DL