IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.36868/2016 (BDA) BETWEEN:
Mr. V.K.GOPAL S/O LATE V.KRISHNAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.289, 12TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE-50 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI P.N.HEGDE, ADV.] AND:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-20 2 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT DIVISION, BDA, BANGALORE MRCR LAYOUT, BDA COMPLEX, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI K.KRISHNA, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH RELEASE OF EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT (EMD) OF Rs.1,12,20,000-00 PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH TENDER INDENT Nos.1000, 10011 AND 1012 INVITED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF PACKAGE No.II, XIII AND XIV OF ‘NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT’.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner is claiming to be one of the participants in the tender Indent Nos.1000, 1011 and 1012 invited by the respondents for the work of formation of sites, roads, drains, CD works, SWD and its developments in proposed “Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout”.
2. It is submitted that as per the requirement of tender notifications, the petitioner had submitted the requisite EMDs along with his financial and technical bids and the petitioner was informed that his technical bids have been accepted and financial bids will be opened on 17.02.2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the second week of June 2014, petitioner had received show-cause notices from the respondents stating that several complaints were received against him and as such Technical Tender Scrutiny Committee has recommended to declare him as ineligible for the tender in terms of the meeting held on 25.04.2014 and finally the tender relating to the petitioner was cancelled. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the representation dated 01.08.2014 submitted by him requesting the authorities to return EMD has remained unconsidered. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, Anenxure–A dated 06.05.2015 and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR