IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.48075 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SMT.VANAJAXI W/O CHANNAPPA MALLADAD AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: PROPRIETOR M/S. SRI.BASAVESHWARA STONE CRUSHER AT POST: KALLIHAL TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI – 581 110 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI K.R.SREENIVASA PATAVARDHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY PARWAJ PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR COLLEGE ROAD, HOSAPET BELLARI DISTRICT – 583 101 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLERY AND PRESIDENT DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE BELLARI – 583 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI Y.H.VIJAYKUMAR, PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE- B & D DATED 09.09.2019 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The office objections are dispensed with.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. On 9th September 2019, the second respondent – the Deputy Director of Department of Mines and Geology issued a provisional acceptance letter to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the requisite amount as security deposit. The petitioner had submitted a bid in auction at the rate of Rs.3,304.50 ps. per metric ton.
4. The petitioner made representations to the concerned authorities praying for reducing the bid amount. The grievance in this petition is that the representations made by the petitioner at Annexures-B and D have been kept pending. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the representations have not been decided. Moreover, he pointed out the information provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the bid amounts offered. He also submitted that there is capping of sand price at Rs.1500 per metric ton. He would, therefore, submit that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the representations at Annexures-B and D.
5. We have considered the submissions. It is true that the representations made by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the concerned authorities within a reasonable time. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents to consider the representations. Grant of such a prayer in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an empty formality. Normally, the Court can issue such a direction to dispose of the representation by the concerned respondents provided the concerned respondents to whom the representation has been made have a power to grant the relief which is sought in the representations.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has voluntarily submitted a bid at a rate of Rs.3304.50 ps. per metric ton. The said bid was accepted as the provisional letter of acceptance was issued by the second respondent. After having submitted the bid in a particular amount which was provisionally accepted, the second and third respondents have no power to allow the petitioner to reduce the bid amount. If at all the said respondents grant such a permission, they will be committing serious illegality. Therefore, we are unable to grant any relief to the petitioner in this petition and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB