M/S Jyoti Mahila Mandala vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Jyoti Mahila Mandala vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2008

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE ma DAY 01:' QECEMBER, 2003 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE N.KUMAR' . : . '  ' 

wan' PETYFION No. 315-?£§/2DG8{GM--I?!§S}  :  

BETWEEN:

M/8 JYGTHI MAHILA MANDALA  "_
YELBURGA, msq' KOPPAL  *
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT  
SMT GIRIJA .   '  _ 
W/O BASAVARAJ KAJJI   __ ._ 
AGE 29 YEARS, occ PRESIDENT   
mom: MANDAL,   _   .,
R/O YELBURGA, 42.313? KQPPAL: 

  '. f;"v.p§=}r1'1'10NER

(13? SR}. A3?-*ATIL;-- Ai3$;.;..  3

AND;;[ V

    Esau §~i*:*A'§"E.0F KARNATAKA

' . R-EPRESEi'~I.'i"ED_ BY ITS SECRETARY

  V {TO 'E.'*E§?_A§€Ti+.1EN'i' OF' WOMEN AND

-- A CHILD'W_'EL¥+':ARE DEVELOPMENT
:sg.s.B131L;;,:Nc;, BANGALORE.

 THE 'DEPUTY CHiEF' MANAGER,

n KARNEXTAKA FOOD AND CIVIL

" V SUFFLIED CORPORATION LXMITED,

 ' 'N0; 16/ 1, MILLERS TANK BUNK} AREA,
 VASANT NAGAR, BANGALORE

~ "'3'.T THE D§S'I'RIC'F MANAGER,

KARNIXTAKA FOOD AND C-IVTL SUPLIES



CORP'{)RA'I'ION LIMITED
D.C.OF'F'lCE COMPLEX,
HOSPET ROAD, KOFPAL

4. THE CHIEF' EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT' KOPPAL, KOPPAL 

5. THE 3E?U'I'Y DIRECTOR,   A.
WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEVEL{_)P
MENTJ DEPARTMENT, KOP}?:'kL DiS'T.._ "
K{}PF'AL. --_  V'

6. THE EXECUTWE OFFICER, 
TALUK PANCI~§AYA'I',V   
YELBURGA, DIST 1<<3i~*3='>.«;s;1,_.' ;

7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENTVAQED
PROJECT OFF'ICER(CiI.)PO)"~ _   
YELEURGA; 'KOPPAL. ~    

   V _ _    ...RESPONE}EN'I'S
(BY Sm K.€vID;-m.vA*rH1;-Hgjcsmw--

THIS  'UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND 227
or THE'r;o'2sss'rmj'r§fo:si"Q:%"~1z~$D1A PRAYZNG TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNEI5 ~2R>ocEEpiNGs.. ~7DA'I'ED 13/11/2303 CIONDUCTED
BY g%;'AND 5 AND..§:§>*rHE§e MEMBVERS 03* THE DISTRECT LEVEL

._j ~.rrgréxjiﬁk'-~sc¥gU*r1NY'"C'éMM1'1*rEE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KGPPAL
 'AS"'?ER'--v.A5*IlfiE}?{LIRE K INSOFAR AS RESOLVING TO comaucr
"'RE'-'}_'_E.NDF§R,, _§«'ci1§suPPLY 01? F000 ARTICLES TO ANGANAWAEI

carqfrsns <5_m'ELBuRGA TALUK IS CONCERNED ANE ETC.

, 3 .   "}'£'HIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
--  '1*:g11s BAY, THE comm' MADE THE FOLLOWING:



ORDER

The petitioner has challenged in .4 Annexmes "K" and "L" by which the .' rejected on the ground that haeeeeen other authorities and for V.e'e+teI1dei';-. *

2. The peﬁﬁonee under the provisions of the -Regietgxaﬁon Act. It is in the busix§eee::."c.-ﬁf to the government hostels In Pltrstzance to the not:iﬁca1V;1iio11" :'g;s.;)ondent No.'_7-the child Bevelopmeet» the petitioner submitted '_vtheiz'fi$5:I}{;iAVer,vé' 'I;1iei1°v's..._x\:vas the lowest bid. At the time of eoiisidexigxge 'j'§eir__bid, they noﬁced that the petitioner has for a period of 5 years. Therefore, they took V --V a fo4 V:e--ten:ier and also intzeduce in the sand' 11:-

'A u " ':13enrie;f reetiﬁcation a condition that persons who have been are not eliﬁble for paxticipating in the tender VT ' pmce' es. Agggrxe ved by the same, the petitioner is bcﬁozrc this V

3. The learned counsel for the petitionor V' the impugned order contends the pt-,tifioner".1Vi§aﬁ?o: 'A a black listed by the 751 mspon(ients;;":.&T1.,i§:y ivhziira listed by other organisations be:

for not consitiering the tender bf. :;%ot§f§oner to the 7"' respondent. the impugned order, they proposed pioﬁﬁoncr from participating evon aﬂzer It:-tender. The petiﬁonei' {hcmfom the action of the mspon&oni" oxticr is illegal and requizves i do 1V1ot------~see any substance in the said on record disclose, some of the o1~g'.€a'.i.1i::atioi1oV'oi'j_l:V1Lé1vxVre black listed the petitioner for not ';;er1'orn1f.;1§1he.,vc4con't:*acts on earlier occasions. In pursuance K x V' notiﬁcation issued by the 75' respondent, the has submitted his tender. At the time of VT idiéoxisiicraﬁon of the sad' tender, 7&1 respondent has not1cer;£' that the petitioner has been black lists:-xi by oth§é1~:§H--«:§7iiz.1 therefore they did not want to consicicr their ' The matzzrial on record further k V' applicants. If one application is black listing, only one tcndé_r'4--..;emé'ir1:§: my wanted to rc~te:uder. Therefon: of mﬁpondent in not consideﬁng the tin: on the ground of black listing by oghers Though black listing '¢1~g.-éﬁisaﬁon had been pointed by take notice of the same with such a person, ﬁat. 'jo;b¢ fauit with. This ia a good considzarairioxb V'En3é«far'v. : intmducing a condition in the V. isto persons who have been biack listed the tender is concemod, it also cannot be It is open to the authozities who call for '.tendefs.. such tczms and conditions in such x V' is:-.Iid[c*';?.AA:.1of:i1ica1:ion. Unless such. conditions are arbitraxy the courts cannot interfere with such "££§i'ms and conditions. If authorities want to introduce a V condition in the tender notiﬁcation that persons whokiavc black listed by any of the organisation are not participating the said tender process, it cannot such a oomfliltion is unreasonable. "AS'1'1c_h&_ a mnﬁiéon a must in the interest of the orgamsa' public in general and also ie,}"%nd A "séach successful tcnderers that thcyr-4-:'§"j_jr1<§'t-.§;on1g1iic"t-thcénselves pmpcrly in terms of thé future is at stake. Such av.Qonditio;;§ and this court at any thought terms and comitio£1....t93. pifoccss transparent: and " in ﬁnf the matter, I do not see any merit iii thié wnﬁfpctition.

i' X it is dism1ssed' .

Judge limit

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court