IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.25861 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
PAVAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, Y.C.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY.NO.484A, 477C AND 477B, KUDUTHINI VILLAGE, BELLARY TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT – 583104. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. KRISHMA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI BASAVARAJ B. SAPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, (MSME, MINES AND TEXTILE), VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE CHAIRMAN, MONITORING COMMITTEE, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
4. M/S VEDANTA LIMITED, S.NO.21, MEGALAHALLI VILLAGE, (MEGHALAHALLI OFFICE COMPLEX BHEEMASAMUDRA), CHITRADURGA – 577520.
(AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED: 22.11.2018).
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BHANUPRAKASH V.G., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2, SRI THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3, SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO ACCEPT THE BID AMOUNT RS.2,833/- PER METER INSTEAD OF RS.3,703/- PER METER AND; ALTERNATIVELY, TO DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT OF RS.15,00,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY AS EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT FOR THE NEXT E-AUCTION TO BE CONDUCTED THROUGH ONLINE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to accept the bid amount and for various other reliefs.
2. At the very inception, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted a copy of the order dated 23.09.2011 passed in W.P. (Civil) No.562 of 2009, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, the order dated 02.09.2011, was modified and it was held that no Court shall take up any challenge to e-auction except that Court.
3. The same is not disputed to by the petitioner’s counsel.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this petition cannot be proceeded with. Hence, the petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj