IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.2588/2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S REDDY VEERANNA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT , 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9/1, 2ND FLOOR, CLASSIC COURT RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. A. VENKATARAMANA S/O VENKATESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RADHANANDAN B S., ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARY DISTRICT BELLARY-583101.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD AND IWTD DIVISION FORT, BELLARY-583101.
5. M. EARANNA S/O M. MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS CLASS I CONTRACTOR NEAR FST MANVI RAICHUR DISTRICT-584123.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA. FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADV. FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.6.1.2014 PASSED BY THE R2 IN PWD 34 BWP 2013 VIDE ANNEX-J SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF THE FINANCIAL BID OF THE PETITIONER AND THE TECHNICAL BID EVALUATION REPORT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP ITHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.1.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in PWD 34 BWP 2013 as per Annexure-J so far it relates to the rejection of the financial bid of the petitioner and the technical bid evaluation report.
2. Petitioner is the Class-I Contractor. In response to the tender called by respondent No.4 through e-procurement for the contract of sand mining, the petitioner had responded to the said bid and submitted the technical bid as well as the financial bid. Subsequently, the bid of the petitioner was accepted and work order was issued. Pursuant to that, the petitioner was carrying on the execution of the tender work for extraction, stacking and loading as per the terms of the contract. In the meantime, respondent No.5, being the unsuccessful bidder, has filed an appeal under section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 before the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 by impugned order dated 6.1.2014 has rejected the appeal filed by the respondent No.5. In the impugned order, there is an observation that petitioner herein has not satisfied the condition No.17 i.e., producing the fitness certificate of the vehicle and equipment by the RTO concerned. Being aggrieved by the said part of the order, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. This Court by order dated 22.1.2014, has granted an interim and permitted the petitioner to extract sand as per the work order and supply the same to the Government as per the contract. There is direction to the Government not to make any payment to the petitioner for the sand supplied from the date of the interim order until further orders. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner has extracted, stacked and loaded the sand supplied to the Government as per the contract, which is for the period 2013-14.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the contract, the petitioner has supplied the sand to the Government and in view of the writ petition pending before this Court, the amount has not been released to the petitioner. This Court by interim order dated 22.1.2014 had permitted the petitioner to extract the sand and to supply the same to the Government. Now the contract period is over. If the petitioner has supplied the sand to the Government as per the contract agreement, the Government can consider his representation for releasing the amount.
5. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner makes any representation for releasing the amount, the same shall be considered by the Government within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. For consideration of representation of the petitioner, the finding given by the appellate authority in respect of the petitioner, will not come in the way of Government to consider his representation.
Sd/- JUDGE DM