M/S Jindal Aluminium Ltd vs Karnataka Renewable on 21 November, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Jindal Aluminium Ltd vs Karnataka Renewable on 21 November, 2014

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

                             1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

       WRIT PETITION No.27158 OF 2014 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
MR. R.K. SONI (FINANCE & TAXATION)
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
JINDAL NAGAR,TUMKUR ROAD,
BANGALORE 560073                           ... PETITIONER

       (By SRI L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADV.)


AND

1.    KARNATAKA RENEWABLE
      ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
      DIRECTOR, 19, EDWARD ROAD,
      BENGALURU,
      KARNATAKA 560052

2.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
      CENTRE FOR E-GOVERANCE
      M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001

3     M/S. SHARDA CONSTRUCTION &
      CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,
      SHARDA HOUSE, BHAGYA NAGAR,
      NEAR ASHOK NAGAR,
      NANDED, A.P.

4     M/S. DOSTI REALTY LIMITED
      LAWRENCY & MAYO HOUSE,
                            2



    1ST FLOOR, 276, DR. D.N.ROAD,
    FORT, MUMBAI-400 001

5   M/S. BHADRESH TRADING CORPORATION
    LTD., 101-104, "A" TOWER,
    PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK,
    G.K. ROAD, LOWER PAREL (W),
    MUMBAI-400 013.

6   M/S. INTEROCEAN SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD.,
    75 LINK ROAD,
    LAJPAT NAGAR III,
    NEW DELHI-110 024.

7   M/S. K.K.RAO ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,
    PLOT NO. PART OF 8,
    ROAD NO.1, IDA NACHARAM,
    HYDERABAD-76.

8   M/S. AZURE POWER INDIA PVT. LTD.,
    NO.8, LSC MADANGIR,
    PUSHP VIHAR,
    NEW DELHI-110 062.

9   M/S. EMAMI POWER LIMITED
    687, ANANDAPUR,
    E.M. BYPASS,
    KOLKATA-700 107.                    ... RESPONDENTS

    (By SRI G.S. KANNUR, ADV. FOR R1
        SRI VIJAY KUMAR.A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2
        SRI B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R5 & R9
       SRI U.SHIVA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R6
       SRI KIRAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R7
       R3, R4, R8 SERVED)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF
THE BIDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR POWER PROJECTS IN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA IN VIEW OF THE TECHNICAL
GLITCHES IN THE WEB SITE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON
31.5.2014 VIDE ANN-D, OR IN THE ALTERNATE DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO RECEIVE THE HARD COPIES OF THE
DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDER THE BID OF THE PETITIONER
                              3



FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE TENDER OF DEVELOPMENT OF
SOLAR PLANT PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

Though, this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for hearing, heard and disposed of by this order.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to extend the time for submission of the bids for development of Solar Power projects in the State of Karnataka in view of the technical glitches in the web site of the Government on 31.5.2014 or in the alternative direct the respondents to receive the hard copies of the documents and consider the bid of the petitioner for participating in the tender of Development of Solar Plant Projects in the State of Karnataka and for certain other reliefs. 4

3. Admittedly, during the pendency of this writ petition bids have been opened and letters of awards have been issued in favour of the respondents No.3 to 7 on 24.7.2014. The petitioner has produced copies of those letters at Annexures-F to M along with the amended writ petition.

4. It is also not in dispute that the said orders awarding tender in favour of the private respondents is appealable under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the matter requires factual adjudication. The alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not only adequate but also efficacious in nature. Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal/appeals challenging the impugned orders in accordance with law. If the petitioner files an appeal/appeals within a period of 15 days from today, 5 the appellate authority is directed to receive them without raising objections as to the limitation and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. All the contentions on merit are kept open. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE KLY/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court