IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.17178 OF 2017 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SONY GRAPHICS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. A.RAJESH BOKADE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.S.ACHUTHA NAYAK, “SANJANA ARCADE”, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, KARKALA-574104 UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER (BY PROPRIETOR, SONY GRAPHICS, PETITIONER SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) AND:
1. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM BHAVAN, BEJAI-KAPIKAD ROAD, MANGALORE-575004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) (COML) MESCOM, 4TH FLOOR, MESCOM BHAVAN, BEJAI-KAPIKAD ROAD, MANGALORE-575004.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TENDER OF THE ACTIVITY OF METER READING AND ISSUING BILL TO CONSUMERS AND FOR A DIRECTION THEM TO CALL FOR THE TENDERS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS STIPULATED IN SL.NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-A DTD: 16.02.2017 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 03.09.2019 seeking permission to retire from the case.
2. Accepting the cause shown, counsel for the petitioner is permitted to retire from the case.
3. Court notice has been issued to the petitioner through registered post and the same is duly served on 21.09.2019. But, the petitioner has not engaged any advocate nor represented the case.
4. Sri. H.V.Devraju, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application to dismiss the writ petition mainly on the ground that the respondent – BESCOM issued notification on 02.02.2017 through E-Procurement mode for meter reading activities and issuing bills at spot using spot billing machines (SBM)/Android based Smart Phones in its various Sub-Divisions and the same was published in Newspaper on 04.02.2017 and the same has been published in the Website on 24.02.2017, whereby pre-bid meeting was held on 09.03.2017 and subsequently, on 16.03.2017, amendment to the said tender was issued wherein the documents should be uploaded and also notified as the last date of submission of tender was 27.03.2017. Technical bid was opened on 30.03.2017 and price bid was opened on 10.05.2017. Further price negotiation meeting was held on 18.05.2017.
5. The notice was issued to the respondent from this Court in the present writ petition and also interim order was granted on 26.04.2017. The petitioner filed present writ petition even though he has not participated in the tender process before filing of the writ petition and Hence, he is not entitled for relief before this Court. The respondents have allotted work in favour of L1 bidder by issuing letter dated 23.11.2017. The interim order granted by this Court on 26.04.2017, reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed with the tender evaluation of the Contractors, they did not insist upon the condition relating to the proceedings five years experience as prescribed in the tender conditions even though the petitioner has not participated. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief sought for.
6. Said submission is placed on record.
7. Since, the petitioner failed to represent before the Court inspite of the Court notice, after retiring of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court has no option except dismissing the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE GH