Karnataka High Court
M/S Shri Shirdi Sai Provision Stores vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 3242
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.12693 OF 2019
C/W W.P.NOS.12694/2019, 12695/2019 &
12696/2019 (GM-TEN)
In W.P.No.12693/2019
Between:
M/s. Shri Shirdi Sai Provision Stores
Office/at: M.G. Road
Chikkaballapura - 562 101
Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Santosh
S/o Mr. S. Venkatesh
Aged about 43 years
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Hemant Chandangoudar, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Backward Classes Welfare Department
M. S. Building
Bengaluru - 560 001
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Tumkur District - 572 101
3. The District Officer
Backward Class Welfare Department
Near DC Office, Tumkur District
Tumkur - 572 101
2
4. M/s. Nanjundeshwara Enterprises
Maruthi Nagar, Bukkapatna
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District
Tumkur - 572 101
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr. Satyanarayan
... Respondents
(By Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA for R1 to R3;
Sri. Bimbadhar M. Gowder, Advocate for R4-absent)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct
respondent Nos.1 to 4 to award the contract in
favour of the petitioner pursuant to the tender
notification issued by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-C and etc.
In W.P.No.12694/2019
Between:
M/s. Shri Shirdi Sai Provision Stores
Office/at: M.G. Road
Chikkaballapura - 562 101
Rep by its Proprietor
Mr. Santosh
S/o Mr. S. Venkatesh
Aged about 43 years
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Hemant Chandangoudar, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Backward Classes Welfare Department
M. S. Building
Bengaluru - 560 001
3
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Tumkur District - 572 101
3. The District Officer
Backward Class Welfare Department
Near DC Office, Tumkur District
Tumkur - 572 101
4. M/s. Nanjundeshwara Enterprises
Maruthi Nagar, Bukkapatna
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District
Tumkur - 572 101
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr. Satyanarayan
... Respondents
(By Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA for R1 to R3;
Sri. Bimbadhar M. Gowder, Advocate for R4-absent)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct
respondent Nos.1 to 4 to award the contract in
favour of the petitioner pursuant to the tender
notification issued by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-C and etc.
In W.P.No.12695/2019
Between:
M/s. Shri Shirdi Sai Provision Stores
Office/at: M.G. Road
Chikkaballapura - 562 101
Rep by its Proprietor
Mr. Santosh
S/o Mr. S. Venkatesh
Aged about 43 years
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Hemant Chandangoudar, Advocate)
4
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Backward Classes Welfare Department
M. S. Building
Bengaluru - 560 001
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Tumkur District - 572 101
3. The District Officer
Backward Class Welfare Department
Near DC Office, Tumkur District
Tumkur - 572 101
4. M/s. Nanjundeshwara Enterprises
Maruthi Nagar, Bukkapatna
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District
Tumkur - 572 101
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr. Satyanarayan
S/o Mr. B. S. RamRao
Aged about 52 years.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA for R1 to R3;
R4 served and unrepresented)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct
respondent Nos.1 to 4 to award the contract in
favour of the petitioner pursuant to the tender
notification issued by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-C and etc.
5
In W.P.No.12696/2019
Between:
M/s. Shri Shirdi Sai Provision Stores
Office/at: M.G. Road
Chikkaballapura - 562 101
Rep by its Proprietor
Mr. Santosh
S/o Mr. S. Venkatesh
Aged about 43 years
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Hemant Chandangoudar, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Backward Classes Welfare Department
M. S. Building
Bengaluru - 560 001
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Tumkur District - 572 101
3. The District Officer
Backward Class Welfare Department
Near DC Office, Tumkur District
Tumkur - 572 101
4. M/s. Maruthi Enterprises
Main Road Soraba Taluk
Soraba - 577 429
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr. Hanumanthappa.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA for R1 to R3;
R4 served through hand summons and
unrepresented)
6
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct
respondent Nos.1 to 4 to award the contract in
favour of the petitioner pursuant to the tender
notification issued by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-C and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Sri. Hemant Chandangoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amended petitions have been filed.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the tender notification dated 26.12.2018 issued by respondent No.2.
7
3. When the matters were taken up today, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the work order has already been issued and the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitions be disposed of with liberty to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the appellate authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties, 8 shall decide the appeal in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of filing of such an appeal.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-