Karnataka High Court
Sri P Vikram Deva Reddy vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara on 16 January, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.516/2013 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI.P.VIKRAM DEVA REDDY,
S/O.LATE P.DURUVASULU REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.8, BEHIND SANDHYA TENT,
OLD MADIVALA,
BANGALORE- 68.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.S.RAVI, ADV.)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE- 560 002.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BASYAM PARK,
SOUTH CENTRAL STREET,
SHESHADRIPURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 020.
2
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION,
WEST ZONE, RTO OFFICE COMPLEX,
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 010.
4. SRI.M.N.SRIRAMULU,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S.GENIUS ENTERPRISES,
NO.06, JJR NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
NEARBY SHANESWARA TEMPLE,
BANGALORE- 560 018.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R., ADV. FOR ASHOK
HARANAHALLI ASSTS FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.SUDHINDRA DESAI, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTICE DTD. 29.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE
R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court praying that the notice dated 29.12.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent impugned at Annexure-D be quashed. Similarly, the 3 petitioner has also sought for quashing the work order dated 29.12.2012 which is impugned at Annexure-J.
2. The petitioner contends that he was one of the bidder for Solid Waste Management Services, when tenders were invited during the year 2007. The petitioner being a successful bidder therein was carrying out the garbage clearance work in Wards bearing No. 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B, 21A, 21B, 21D, 22B, 22C and 22D. The said work was assigned under Package-10. The petitioner is stated to have possessed all the infrastructure required for the work including the manpower and has successfully carried out the garbage disposal as required under the tender. Pending consideration of calling for fresh tenders and issuing work orders to the successful bidders, the work which was being carried on by the petitioner was continued from time to time. When this was the position, the communication dated 29.12.2012 which is impugned at Annexure-D was issued to the 4 petitioner indicating that he shall now discontinue the work of garbage disposal which was being permitted to him in respect of two wards. In that regard, the work in the said wards were assigned to 4th respondent herein by the work order dated 29.12.2012 as at Annexure-J. While seeking relief as indicated herein, the contention of the petitioner is that though the requirement of the number of vehicles and the manpower had been clearly indicated in the tender document and the same being one of the criteria for accepting the tenders, the 4th respondent does not possess the required number of vehicles or the manpower to carryout the work. It is in that context, the petitioner contends that the 4th respondent should not be permitted to carryon the work when he does not possess the requirements and therefore the petitioner should be permitted to continue garbage disposal even in respect of the wards No. 101 and 107 for which he had been permitted to do so earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on 5 certain information stated to have been obtained under Right to Information Act to indicate that in respect of certain aspects relating to the vehicles to be possessed, specially the Auto Rickshaws and the Pushcarts, the 4th respondent does not possess the required number of Auto Rickshaws or the Pushcarts inasmuch as the Pushcarts available are only 28 as against 35 and Auto Rickshaws are only 11 as against 15. In such circumstance, when the 4th respondent cannot carryout the work, the work order issued is not sustainable is the contention.
3. The learned counsel for the BBMP while opposing the petition would contend that the petitioner cannot question the work order issued to the 4th respondent inasmuch as the petitioner had not participated in the present tender process and as such at this juncture cannot assail the work order which has culminated on completion of the tender process. It is also 6 the contention that in respect of the requirements, certain relaxation has been made keeping in view the area and the nature of the disposal of garbage, provided the successful bidder carries out the work as required for the purpose of garbage disposal. Hence, it is contended that in the present circumstance, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Having noticed the rival contentions, though at this juncture this Court need not go into the question as to whether the 4th respondent is presently carrying out the garbage disposal to the full satisfaction of the officials, the question for consideration is as to whether the claim as made by the petitioner herein would be sustainable. In that regard, first and foremost as indicated by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had not participated in the tender process which culminated in the issue of work order to the 4th 7 respondent. Hence, on that ground itself the petitioner cannot make out any grievance.
5. Furthermore, what is to be noticed is that though the petitioner was the successful bidder of the tender process in the year 2007, he has thereafter carried out the work and the continuation of the garbage clearance allotted to the petitioner in respect of those wards was only a temporary arrangement till the tender process is completed and the successful bidder takes over. In that regard, though at this juncture, the intimation notice dated 29.12.2012 refers to only two wards bearing No. 101 and 107, the same is also sustainable for the reason that the successful bidder will take over the work in a smooth manner, phase by phase and as such even the same will not call for interference. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in the petition is not sustainable.
8
6. In terms of the above, the petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*