Karnataka High Court
M/S B B Jyothi Fisheries Maruti Aracade vs The Union Of India on 18 December, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.83191/2013 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S B.B.JYOTHI FISHERIES,
MARUTI ARACADE, 3RD FLOOR,
C/O BHART COMPUTER EDUCATION,
CUTINHO ROAD, KARWAR,
BY ITS MANAGER,
A. RAVISHANKAR S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KARWAR, DIST: KARWAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
BY SECRETARY TO DEFENCE,
CORPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI.
2. THE FLAG OFFICER,
COMMANDING IN CHIEF, FOR C-LOGO,
HQ WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND, MUMBAI.
3. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING,
HEAD QUARTER KARNATAKA NAVAL AREA,
KARWAR.
4. THE FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING,
CSO (P & A) NAVAL AREA, KARWAR.
2
5. THE FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING,
STAFF OFFICE (STORE),
NAVAL AREA (KTK) KARWAR.
6. THE FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING
STAFF AREA (COSTAL SECURITY),
NAVAL AREA, KARWAR.
7. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING,
IFA, NAVAL AREA (KTK),
KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 10.09.2013 BEARING
NO.OP/705/FIC ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT THE COPY
OF THE SAME IS AT ANNEXURE-R TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
After hearing both the parties, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits to consider his oral prayer for consideration of his representation dated 28.03.2013 as per Annexure-Q and to pass appropriate orders within a particular period. He further submitted, he confines only his prayer, to that effect.
2. The respondents had issued tender notification dated 27.09.2010, for which the petitioner participated and he was a 3 lowest bidder. As a result, there were some correspondences between them for about two years. Without withdrawing earlier tender notification, the respondents issued subsequent tender notification in the year 2012. However, without allowing that to reach finality, the said tender notification was withdrawn. Now the respondents have issued another tender notification in the year 2013 and the same has been challenged in this writ petition.
3. The earlier tender notification as per Annexure-A dated 27.09.2010 stands rejected by virtue of issuance of subsequent tender notification in the year 2012. Even, the said tender notification not reached finality, again the respondents issued one more tender notification in the year 2013, which practically for all the purposes replaces the earlier tender notifications. When such being the case, the case of the petitioner that, he was kept in communication for the purpose of negotiations could be treated as an acceptance cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, the prayer Nos.1 and 2 stand rejected. Since the petitioner requested this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation and the said prayer is considered by issuing direction to the respondents.
4
4. If at all the petitioner sustained any loss, it is for him to make necessary application to the respondents and such representation has to be considered in accordance with law. Even if any representations are still pending, it is directed to the petitioner to make one more representation within two weeks and the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.2/2013 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE.
MBS/-