Karnataka High Court
Mr J C Vishwanatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
TEETER WT RARNAIARA Mish COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ ET ee hey -i1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26™ DAY OF MAY 2008 - BEFORE wes, THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE E. KUMAR BETWEEN | 1 MRJC VISHWANATHA 8/0 MC CHOWDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT ZB YEARS . mo R/AT NO 47, 97H MAIN QNDC'CROSS BSKOISTACE BAKOALORE-D60083 Pay bt Se SGEALA BRIGG te SUEEERA 8, AD AND : a ie 8 oh i 1 'THE STATE OF KARNATAKA _. REP BY ITS SECRETARY _ DEPT.OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES M8 BUILDING SARGALORE-360001 (THE MANAGER ayes '. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA | SEHIMOGA KARNATAKA 3 MR LOKANATHA 8/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 26/2 RESERVOIR STREET 4 FATT Sewn WP RARNAIARA MiGh COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ -- 5 sR? SE THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDEE ARTICLES 20 AND 227 OF THE CORSTTIUTICN OF INDIA PRAYING 'SO DIRECT R2 TO GIVE PERMISSION, OFPORTUNTTY, -- SUFFICIENT TIME ETC., TO THE PETITIONER TO FILL UP THE SCHEDULE "B' FORM AND TC SUBMIT THE SAME IN. A PROPER MANNER BEFORE THE R2 AKD ALSO GIVE PERMISSION TO CONTEST THE ABOVE _BID/AUCTION VIDE ANNEX.D. ee | THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MALS THE FOLLOWING : The petivoner haa sought for a writ of mandamus directing the cm respondent to give permission,
opportunity, suiiclent time ete, to the petitioner to fil Hp he Scale form acto eubmit th wame i ' . peraisuion © contest the above bid/auction vide Avner and also to quash the auction which je
2. The petitioner is a qualified contractor to do public works anywhere in Karnateke. He has obtained license from the comcerned authorities on 25.4.2007.
TUM www wT RARIAIARA FHF LUYURI Ur KRAKNALAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ -3- According to him, he is doing works in the public sector etc, and he hee very good knowledge and iden in: doing so in any field. The 2™ respondent on 24.4.2008 issued a tender notification calling for the bidders 10 doposit z and to bid the auction to be hell om 12.8.2008., 'The petitioner deposited a simi. of R.2,190/- being the application charges. The. ee respondent iusued the Scheu form in the aac of the petitioner. It m the specific case of the potitiner that immediately thereafter, the 2+ recpumdent forcibly and illegal hes taker. ook the Schedule 'B' form from the petitioner even though the petitioner had sufficient time and opportunity to fl-up Schedule '3' form on per law and 7 wakmit the same sefore the 204 respondent. This act of : 7 'the Qed 'epondent i is illegal, improper and against the | ip of turns. There he has preferred
3. I bave heard the learned counsel for the Iw SWE WE IMAM OI SU OW RAIA ARAL Pier LWA UP RAR NALANA HESH & 'a FREES EERE OO sow ee ee ~@-
4. AnnexureB is the tender notice. It categovically «tates that the tender form omy be obtained from the office of the Assistont "enecal Manager (E-ngg.), Food Corporation of India, Regiacal : . Office, No.10, Bast End Main Road, Jayaregar 4 T° Block, Bangalore 560041, 'botween 11.00 AM ari 4.00 PM upto 7.5.2008 on payment of cost in cash on production of full particulers of worke completed by them duly 'supported aye "sufficient documentary evidence Bank solvency -- camtificate, Registration Certifvats and work experience cectifieate eto. The completed tendery would be received by the Assistant General "Manager Engg), FCI, Regional Offfice, oe Bangalore-41 upts 3.00 PM on 12.5.2008 and opened A 'on the sama day at 3.30 PM in the presence of tenderere ort their authorised representatives.
~~ §. It is not in dispute that the petitioner paid oo a - Ra.1,190/- on 5.5.2008 and the 2>! respondent gave him the prescribed application form. The petitioner had all the time upto 12.5.2008 to submit the completed Iwi WwW WT ARMA EW SA OW AARINAI ARAL OI OU UWURE WP RAKRINAIARA Pte EEE E Wt Se SER Se FE ERR; oe Ee re PRESS ERE REWR OF Sehr es ee er rE -5- application form in all reapeots. | fail to- understand :
how the 2u! respondent would compel the petiticner to and over the application on the very seme day end that the petitioner a very experianced contmnctor in the State of Karnataka obliged them without complying with | the legal requirements. Toe case sought to be made out by the petitioner is imaginary and cannot be granted. I do not find any merit in this 5 petition. 'Accordingly, the petition ia rejected.
Sd/~ Judge