Karnataka High Court
Mr. P Gopinath Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.44786 OF 2019 (GM-TEN)
Between:
Mr. P. Gopinath Reddy
S/o Late Chinnathambi Reddy,
Aged about 57 years,
No.6 behind Sandhya Talkies,
Old Madiwala Road,
Bengaluru-560 068. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Varun Patil, Advocate for
Sri. Mohammed Tahir A., Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Authority,
Vikas Soudha,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
N.R. Square,
Bengaluru-560 002.
3. The Special Commissioner,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Solid Waste Management,
N.R. Square,
Bengaluru-560 002.
2
4. The Joint Commissioner,
Health and Solid Waste Management,
BBMP, N.R. Square,
Bengaluru-560 002.
5. The Executive Engineer-1,
Solid Waste Management-1, 3rd Floor,
Annex Building, BBMP,
N.R. Square, Bengaluru-560 002.
6. Sri. Madhusudhan
S/o Somareddy,
Aged about 25 years,
No.309, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross,
Kamanahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru-08.
7. Sri. M. Venkatesh
S/o Munniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 55 years,
NO.1809, 13th Cross,
24th Main, 1st Sector,
HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560 002.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Vijayakumar A. Patil, AGA for R-1
Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, Advocate for R-2 to 5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
direct the R-2 to 5 to finalize the tender process in
cases of the bidders participated in more than one
ward, then after award of the first package, the R-2
to 5 shall examine his financial capacity of the
bidder for the subsequent award of packages in
other wards after exhausting his financial capacity
of the first package in numerological order as per
condition No.3.4.2 & 3.7.5 of the RFP at Annexure-
A etc.
3
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Sri. Varun Patil, learned counsel for Sri. A. Mahammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri. K. N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender process, in cases of the bidders who have 4 participated in more than one ward, in accordance with clauses 3.4.2 and 3.7.5 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender in respect of Ward No.149 by excluding respondent No.7 in the light of condition No.3.4.1 (B) Sl.No.(ii), 3.4.2 and 3.7.5 of Request for Proposal. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender in respect of Ward No.08 by excluding respondent No.6 in the light of condition No.3.4.1 (B) Sl.No.(ii), 3.4.2 and 3.7.5 of Request for Proposal. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender process of the bidders in compliance with the condition No.3.4.1 (B) Sl.No.(ii), 3.4.2 and 3.7.5 of the Request for Proposal.
5
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order of this Court dated 29.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.30940/2019.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid order, the impugned decision of the respondent-Corporation in declaring respondent No. 7 to be the lowest bidder in respect of Ward No.149 and respondent No.6 to be the lowest bidder in respect of Ward No.08 are hereby quashed. The respondent-Corporation is directed to evaluate the bids of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7, whose bids have found to be technically responsive and to evaluate their tender bids in the light of the stipulation 6 contained in Clause 3.7.5 of the Request for Proposal document as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-