IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.436/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNA S/O LATE THAVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT KEREBEEDI, KURUPETE KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117 ...APPELLANT (BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI K.Y. AHMED S/O LATE K.A. YOUSUF AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KONDANGERE VILLAGE & POST, VIA MURNAD VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTICT-571 252 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK VISVESHWARAIAH CENTER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES SOMWARPET KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES NO.891, ‘E’ & ‘F’ BLOCK AGNIHAMSA ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE-570 023 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R2-R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/08/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.34463/2018 [GM-RES]; b) CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WP NO.34463/2018 [GM-RES] FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN WITH COSTS; c) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.03.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is presented by fourth respondent in Writ Petition No.34463/2018 challenging order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dated August 29, 2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.
3. Assistant Director of Fisheries, Somwarpet invited tender-cum-auction to grant fishing rights in respect of five Tanks situated in Somwarpet Taluk fixing last date for submission of tenders as June 21, 2018 and auction on June 22, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. Writ petitioner submitted the bid before the last date by depositing earnest money deposit. Auction was held on June 22, 2018. Petitioner’s bid was for Rs.3,10,000/- and fourth respondent’s bid was for Rs.3,07,000/-. The Deputy Director of Fisheries submitted a proposal to the Director of Fisheries for acceptance of petitioner’s bid. The Director rejected the said proposal and further directed the Deputy Director to submit a fresh proposal. This action by the Director was questioned in the instant writ petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed that work order be issued in petitioner’s favour. Feeling aggrieved, fourth respondent has presented this appeal.
4. Shri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Advocate for the fourth respondent contended that ‘Annexure-13’ to the Tender documents mandates that the first year’s lease amount had to be paid by enclosing a Demand Draft along with the tender. The fourth respondent has complied with this requirement.
5. The bidder who desired to participate in the auction without paying security deposit was required to pay the same by way of a demand draft before commencement of auction. Petitioner chose to participate in the auction without paying the security deposit. He has not tendered ‘first year lease amount’ before participating in the auction. Therefore, the Director has rightly rejected the proposal sent by the Deputy Director in petitioner’s favour. Hence, the impugned order directing issuance of work order in petitioner’s favour is unsustainable in law.
6. Shri. Kiran Kumar, for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the highest bidder. Therefore, the Director’s order to re-submit the proposal is not sustainable in law.
7. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that a participant in the auction is entitled to participate without paying security deposit, but the successful bidder will have to pay the entire bid amount as per Clause 8 of ‘Annexure-14’.
9. The Hon’ble Single Judge having considered the material on record, has, in our view rightly held that the requirement of payment of bid amount on the spot immediately after auction has been satisfied in the instant case with petitioner tendering Rs.3,10,000/- on June 22, 2018. Hence, we are at one with the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge.
In the result, this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SPS Sd/- JUDGE