IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8377 OF 2016 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS M/S SPOORTHY CONSTRUCTIONS CLASS-I CONTRACTOR, KAVERI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040.
(By Mr. HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADV.) AND:
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560001.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL DIVISION, SHIMOGA – 577201.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL DIVISION … PETITIONER SHIMOGA – 577201. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned new tender process dtd:13.1.2016 by the respondent authorities vide Annexure-L and restore the earlier tender awarded in favour of the petitioner firm vide Annexure-A in accordance with law, and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Hanumantharaya.D, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar.A.Patil, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate for the respondents.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari QUASHING the impugned new tender process No.KPWD/2012-13/OW/ WORK_INDENT/14572/CALL-2 dated 13.1.2016 by the respondent authorities vide Annexure-L and restore the earlier tender awarded in favour of the petitioner firm in No.KPWD/2012-13/OW/WORK_INDENT -14572 vide Annexure-A in accordance with law.
b) To award the suitable compensation to the petitioner firm for loss of time and money resulted due to in action of the respondent authorities.
4. Though the matter was taken up today, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that in respect of the contract awarded by the respondent, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,69,000/- and Rs.1,63,069/- and the amount of earnest money deposited was also returned in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that with regard to second NIT dated 13.01.2016, the petitioner was also permitted to participate in the aforesaid notice inviting tender. No further action has been taken in response to the second NIT dated 13.01.2016 as unauthorized occupants had raised an objection.
5. The aforesaid statement made by learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate is taken on record.
6. From the statement made by learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV