Karnataka High Court
Mr P Vikram Deva 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.43905 OF 2019 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
MR. P. VIKRAM DEVA REDDY
S/O LATE P. DURUVASULU REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.08, BEHIND SANDHYA THEATER,
OLD MADIWALA,
BANGALORE - 560 076. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MAHAMMED TAHIR A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
3. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT,
N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
2
4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
HEALTH AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT,
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-1
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT-1,
3RD FLOOR, ANNEX BUILDING,
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
6. SMT. GANESH C.N.
S/O. C.O. NAGABUSHANAM,
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.15/2, 4TH CROSS, OBELESH COLONY,
J.J.R. NAGAR (S),
BANGALORE - 560 018.
7. SMT. SOUNDIRAN GIRIJA
W/O SOUNDIRAN,
AGE ABOUT: 55 YEARS,
NO.15/1, 1ST A CROSS,
25TH MAIN ROAD,
KALAPPA BLOCK, SRINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 050.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI K.N.PUTTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO R-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
NUMBEROLOGICAL ORDER AS PER CONDITION
3
NO.3.4.2 & 3.7.5 OF THE RFP AT ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
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 4 process, in cases of the bidders who have 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.159 by excluding respondent Nos.6 and 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 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.
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 5 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 Nos.6 and 7 to be the lowest bidders in respect of Ward No.159 is 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 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/-