Karnataka High Court
Sri.Anand S/O Arjunrao vs The Deputy Commissioner & Ors on 2 February, 2018
Author: B Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B. Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA
W.P.No.200411/2018 (GM-TEN)
Between:
Anand S/o Arjunrao
Age: 38 years
Occ: Class-I Contractor (CIVIL)
R/o H.No.8/3/199
Wind-97, KIIB Colony
Bidar-585401 ... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner
Bidar, D.C. Officer
Bidar-585401
2. The Director of
Municipal Administration
Visweshwaraiah Tower
Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru-560 001
3. The Project Director
District Urban Development Cell
Bidar, D.C. Office
Bidar-585 401
2
4. Executive Engineer
Public Works Department
PWD Office, Bidar-585401
5. The Commissioner
C.M.C. Bidar
C.M.C. Office
Bidar-585401
...Respondents
(By Sri K.M. Ghate, AGA)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Clause No.3
insofar as it relates to the qualification for award of the
contract with an experience at least one such work in last
five years with a similar specification in the tender called for
by the 5th respondent bearing package Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 with
a work indent Nos.67706, 67707, 67708 and 55378 as at
Annexure-E (bearing No. ¸ÀASÉåB©JA¦/EJ£ïf/¹Dgï-710/16-
17/308/2017-18/1413 dated 17.01.2018 as illegal and
arbitrary in nature and writ of mandamus directing the
respondents authorities to relax Clause No.3 in the general
terms and condition imposed in the tender called for by the
5th respondent for qualification (vide Annexure-E).
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification dated 17.01.2018 issued by the fifth respondent inviting applications from qualified tenderers to develop gardens in and around Bidar City under Amrutha Yojane Scheme introduced by the Central Government.
2. Case of the petitioner is, he is a class-I contractor holding licence as per Annexure-A issued by the Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka and he has produced work done certificate as per Annexure-B. The grievance of the petitioner is, in view of the condition stipulated under clause 3.2(b) of the notification dated 17.01.2018 issued by the fifth respondent at Annexure-E inviting tender for development of gardens in and around Bidar City under 4 Amruth Yojana Scheme introduced by the Central Government, he could not apply for tender.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though petitioner had carried out several contract works of similar nature, he could not apply pursuant to the present tender notification because of the reason that he had not carried out such contract works during last five years immediately prior to the notification. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since petitioner had suffered a paralysis stroke on 22.10.2011, he could not do contract works between 2013 upto 2018.
4. It is not the case of the petitioner that, the respondents has not imposed such condition earlier. It is his admitted case that he did not have experience in carrying out similar contract works during last five years immediately prior to the notification. It is also not his case that such a condition was imposed by the fifth 5 respondent with a malafide intention to deprive the petitioner from applying for the tender. That being so, there is no merits in the case of the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Hence, I pass the following;
ORDER The petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB/KJJ