IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.7960 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Shri T. Nagarajaiah S/o. late Thimmaiah Proprietor, Shri Manjunathaswamy Electricals and Civil Government Licensed Electrical and Civil Contractors and Engineers K.P.T.C.L. Class I and KPWD Class I No.247, New No.43/19 Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwar Nilaya Revanna Layout, Chikka Bidarakallu Nagasandra Post, N.H.4 Tumkur Road, Bangalore – 73.
…Petitioner (By Sri.Shivashankar S.K., Adv.) AND:
1. The Chief Engineer P.W.D., Communications and Buildings (South), K.R.Circle, Bangalore – 1.
2. The Superintendent Engineer PWD, Communication and Buildings K.R.Circle, Bangalore – 1.
3. The Executive Engineer (Ele) Electrical Division PWD Department K.R.Circle, Bangalore – 1.
4. The Technical Assistant Electrical Division O/o. Executive Engineer PWD, K.R.Circle, Bangalore – 1.
(By Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, Adv., for R1, …Respondents Sri Kiran Kumar T.L., AGA for R2 to R4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents for issuance of work order in respect of the Tender Notification dated 18.09.2015 published in E- portal tender issued by R1 at Annex-G and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking for mandamus to direct the respondents to issue work order in respect of the tender notification dated 18.9.2015.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having participated in the tender process and being qualified, work order has not been issued.
3. In a matter of present nature, a mandamus without making demand with the respondents would not arise. If the petitioner still has grievance that the work has not been allocated to him, the petitioner is granted liberty of filing an appropriate representation to respondent No.1. In that light, respondent No.1 shall take note of that representation and intimate the petitioner the reasons, if any, for which the request of the petitioner has not considered. Needless to mention that if the request of the petitioner arises for consideration, in that regard also respondent No.1 may accordingly intimate the petitioner.
4. The petitioner, if interested shall make such representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Respondent No.1 shall thereupon take note of the same and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SA