IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6878 OF 2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SRI B. M. RANGEGOWDA S/O. LATE MUDDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O. BOREGOWDANA KOPPALU MATHIGHAT POST HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK573 116. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CELL N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.
4. M/S. J. C. PRAKASH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI J. C. PRAKASH R/O. H. N. 8, M.I.G.
2ND STAGE, K.H.B. COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, A.G.A. FOR R1 SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL BID OF THE R-4 APPROVED BY THE R-3 ON 15.12.2018. THE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITON AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri P. Chandrashekar for Sri Vijetha R. Naik, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the approval of technical bid of the fourth respondent approved by the third respondent on 15.12.2018. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept his bid, as the petitioner is the successful bidder in the tender process.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since, the order has been passed by the Technical Evaluation/Financial Evaluation and Rate Committee formulated under the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 before the State Government.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted the liberty to file an appeal within a week from today. Needless to state, in case such an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority, the same shall be decided expeditiously, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of filing such an appeal.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST