IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.36545/2018 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN SRI BETTAYYA, S/O LATE BYALAPPA PRASANNA, AGED 53 YEARS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KUNIGAL BYPASS ROAD, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560052. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. SARITHA A.L, ADV. FOR SRI. S B SRINIVASA, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, #8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD SAHAKARA BHAVAN, BANGALORE -560052 3. THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560052. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- N.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt. Saritha.A.L. for Sri. S.B.Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
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 has assailed the validity of the endorsement dated 14.08.2018 issued by respondent No.3, by which the petitioner was informed that the technical bid submitted by him has been rejected.
4. Admittedly, during the pendency of the writ petition, in compliance of the order dated 04.09.2018, the respondents have erred in selection process and process of award of contract and the contract has been awarded in favour of the proposed respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner has two Experience Certificates and if the same is considered by the respondents, the petitioner would be eligible for the contract in question.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the subsequent developments, nothing survives for adjudication by this Court in this writ petition and the petitioner in fact has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Section 16 of the Act reads as under:
“16. Appeal.-(1) Any tenderer aggrieved by an order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority other than the Government under Section 13 may appeal to the prescribed authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order;
Provided that the prescribed authority may, in its discretion allow further time not exceeding thirty days for preferring any such appeal, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time.
(2) The prescribed authority may after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties pass such order thereon as it deems fit and such order shall be final.
(3) the prescribed authority shall as far as possible dispose of the appeal within thirty days from the date of filing thereof.”
9. Admittedly, in the instant case, contract has been awarded in favour of the proposed respondent. Therefore, alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing an appeal. At this stage, no such direction could be issued to the Competent Authority to consider the Experience Certificates of the petitioner and to award contract in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, such relief does not fall within the purview of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the submission and in the facts of the case, I am not inclined to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in view of availability of alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT-HR