IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51614 OF 2018 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/S PALTECH COOLING TOWERS AND EQUIPMENTS LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO 26 & 26A ROZ KA MEO INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I SOHNA ROAD HARYANA-122103 B-604.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR SANJIV BANSAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SH J P BANSAL. … PETITIONER (By Mr. V F KUMBAR, ADV.) AND:
THE DIRECTOR COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES PB NO.1779 HAL AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE – 560017. … RESPONDENT (By Mr. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV.) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO BE ALLOWED TO PERFORM AS THE L-1 BIDDER WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT TENDER AS PER LETTER DTD:3.2.2018 VIDE AT ANNAEXURE-F, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
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 for a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner to be allowed to perform as the L-1 bidder with regard to the subject tender as per letter dated 03.02.2018 vide Annexure-F.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction that suitable action, if not already taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner, shall be taken in accordance with law by the competent authority by a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With regard to the other reliefs which have been claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under the law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
5. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV