IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6254 OF 2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
Srinidhi Constructions ‘Srinidhi’ Opposite Shubamangala Choultry, 60 feet Road, 1st Stage, Vinobanagara, Shivamogga – 577 204. By its Managing Partner, G.V.M. Raju S/o G. Veerashekarappa Aged about 36 years.
(By Sri. S. V. Prakash, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Chief Engineer C & B (N) Public Works Department, Mini Vidhana Soudha Road, UB Hills, Malmaddi, Dharwad – 580 001.
… Petitioner 3. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, PWD Circle Office, Rathnamma Madhavarao Road, Shivamogga – 577 201.
4. Executive Engineer, Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport, Divisional Office, P.B. Road, Davanagere – 577 002.
… Respondents (By Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 30.01.2019 produced as per Annexure-F to the writ petition, and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. S. V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 30.01.2019, by which a tender issued by the respondents dated 15.10.2018 has been cancelled.
4. When the mater was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because the petitioner has got a political background and his father is a sitting member of Zilla Panchayath, the decision has been taken to cancel the tender.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that decision in fact has been taken to cancel the tender in question merely because only one bid was received in pursuance of the tender notice dated 15.10.2018 and the observations made in the order dated 30.01.2019 shall not be treated as disqualification of the petitioner to participate in respect of the future tenders.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into fact that the order dated 30.01.2019 was passed as the petitioner was the only tenderer, whose bid was found to be cancelled, I deem it appropriate that respondents have rightly taken decision in canceling the Notice Inviting Tender. Needless to state that the observations made in the order dated 31.01.2019 shall not be treated as disqualification of the petitioner to participate in the future tenders and if petitioner submits the tender in future, his eligibility shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-