Karnataka High Court
Mrs P Saraswathi 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.43907 OF 2019 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
MRS.P.SARASWATHI
W/O LATE P.DURUVASULU REDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
NO.1090, 8TH CROSS
BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 029
... 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. SRI M.GANGADHAR SWAMY
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NO.172, NTI LAYOUT, 1ST PHASE
RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR
KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKAR NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 091
7. SRI H.NARASE GOWDA
S/O NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.90, 9TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN
KAVERIPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE - 560 079
8. R.RANGANATH
S/O RANGADASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.8, 6TH B MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
2ND PHASE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE - 56
... 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
3
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
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.
4
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 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.101 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 in respect of Ward No.44 by excluding respondent No.8 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 5 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 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.101 and respondent No.8 to be the lowest bidder in respect of Ward No.44 are hereby quashed. The respondent- Corporation is directed to evaluate the bids of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.6 to 8, whose bids have found to be technically responsive and to 6 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/-