Karnataka High Court
Blackbox Gps Technology Opc Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:11756
WP No. 8260 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 8260 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
BLACKBOX GPS TECHNOLOGY OPC PRIVATE LIMITED
UNIT NO.E5D 5TH FLOOR, TOWER B
GODREJ ETERNIA PLOT NO.70,
INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-1
CHANDIGARH-160002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
IT'S SOLE DIRECTOR
MR.RAJESH VAIDYA
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
NO.153, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD GATE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
2. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
TTMC BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:11756
WP No. 8260 of 2024
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(ADMINISTRATION)
O/O TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K H ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE NOTICE RULE NISI
CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
REJECTION OF PETITIONERS BID SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED AS
BEING ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
"a. Issue notice of Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the rejection of Petitioner's bid should not be quashed as being illegal and arbitrary;
b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or pass any other writ/writs, direction/directions by quashing the impugned order dated 6.3.2024 (Annexure-A) of rejection of the bid of the Petitioner.
c. Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of order directing the Respondent No.2 to include the Petitioner in the list of empanelled manufacturers under the Second Call. d. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:11756 WP No. 8260 of 2024
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravi Raghavan, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Navya Shekhar, appearing for the respondents.
3. The issue relates to empanelment on certain condition. On the First Call, it appears that, the petitioner's request for proposal was accepted. In the Second Call, it comes to be rejected without any reason, is what has driven the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition.
4. The reason is supplied by the learned AGA in terms of a document. The reason as found in the conclusion of the document is what forms the reason for rejection of the request for proposal of the petitioner in the Second Call. The reason is that the fixed deposit receipt (for short 'FDR') that he had submitted was had its validity between 29.01.2024 upto 23.02.2028.
5. Learned AGA would take this Court through the FDR conditions that the validity of the FDR should be five years. Admittedly, it falls short.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:11756 WP No. 8260 of 2024
6. Learned AGA would further submit that if the validity is appropriately modified and a fresh FDR submitted, there would be no impediment for consideration of the empanelment of the petitioner even in the Second Call.
7. With this statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if a week's time is granted, he would revaluate the FDR and present it to a Competent Authority.
8. These submissions are placed on record. A week's time is granted to the petitioner to do the needful, as observed hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38