Karnataka High Court
Sri Hussain Pasha vs The Executive Engineer Public Works ... on 2 April, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE _ DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF APRIL 2008 .~ 8 . BEFORE -- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KL MANJUNATI | WRIT PETITION NO.5469 OF 2008 (QM-1 EN} a SRI HUSSAIN PASHA, S/O MOHAMMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, | 7 OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/ OF MANVI, Dist. RAICHUR. _. ,., PETITIONER (BY SRLP S MAL APSTIL, ADV. J AND: i, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, RAICH! iR DIVISION, _RAICHUR. 2. ™ EARANNA, S/O MALLESHAPPA, - AGED 42 YEARS, Ome. CONTRACTOR, 7 R/OF MANMI, DIST. RAICHUR. ... RESPONDENTS
_. (BY SEILB VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R1) oe a This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respomdent No.1 to issue of fresh tender in so far it ee eS Se es ae A er SS OSE SS "ake Se er SEE EEE SS SRE SRE RSS FSR ES Nr ae Ne PE SS SRI PER ae Wwe Ge eo er EPEC Re ree Se er SR er RRR EPR ESE, Ob Ea ae 8S teimticke 2 relates to work at SL No.5 concerned vide tender notification dated 10.1.2008 issued by respondent | No.1 wile foonexcure- 'A' and etc. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following :
GRDER Heard the counsel for the 'petitioner and Govt. Advocate for R1. : | | |
2. The petitioner is a 'class i contractor. On 10.01.2068 the ise responient, inwited tenders from eligible contractors" "calling 'upon the interested contractors to file tenders under tua separate packets --
honowr! ae technical bid and financial bel im terme of the 7 Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000, | Acomding to the petitioner he prepared twe 7 - separate covers containing financial bid and technical mals 'bid separately im respect of item No. namely, development of existing road and chip corporating at ; "Ramdurga - Manvi road, NH, No.14 from 230.40 kms. te 235.43 kms, The petitioner was required to submit § t ¢ ¢ 2 ' 2 a } J ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a eee eee ee eee ry. =? % Mm ™\, 20 CHR EK PKS BREET 0 ct thE re a ee ae ose Se Be St ar ee ee eS PER SRE ES See eee the tender on or before 23.02.2008. According to the petitioner when the petitioner went near the office of the -- lt respondent te submit the tender forms in separate a sealed covers, the 2"! respondent whoa is also a class - a eantractor snatched and torn the. sealed cover. mS the technical bid fom: 'the petitioner. Iminediately the petitioner got 'issued legal notice through is Advocate on. 24. 92.2008. ta the 1 reeperdent amd. oaged a. » complaint before the jurisdictional o polis on. 19. 03. 2008, oe a. The present petition is fled requesting the court to eue a weit of mandamus to the 1# respondent to Penotify, the tender in so far as it relates to Sl. No.5 at | 'Annexure- | "8, on the ground that on account of the | high: handed act 'af 2 reepomdent the petitioner could x not submit the technical bid and financial bid . 7 separe'ely 'and that on account of paucity of time the oe | : petitioner submitted both the bid documents under one i over and that the 1* respondent may reject the tender form of the petitioner on technical ground. gv ES Sa TE rm Se wie Ww eR Per GUAR OP ARNA AA PS OUR WP RANA AA PO We er Ae Cer ee ee ------------ Tee
4. The learned Govt. Advocate contends that there ig mo substance in the contentions urged by. the » petitioner. According to him there is nothing to eho Ma 23,02,2008, Even if tender form had been 8 snatoned oC | the 2u! ree pondent om 23.02. 2008, he could have lodged a complaint before the 1%. respondent on the same day amd when the petitioner ¢ could able to subunit twa bid documents under one cover, there was no difficulty for the petitioner "to: submit the bid, documente under separate covers, . _Thecatre he 'requests the court to dismiss the petition.
. Raving heard the counsel for the parties, | considering, the conduct of the petitioner, this court carmot. grant any relief to the petitioner. If really 254 : cespondent, had snatched the technical bid cover from | - the petitioner, petitioner would have resisted the same . . and lodged a complaint before the 1° reapondent and 7 the police immediately and on the same day. Even if the case of the petitioner is accepted for the sake of cv Pay esac ee ae eee YE CG Getd OBS we EP PerN Peer oe Gee eee re Ean Se See ees eee eee arguments, when the petitioner is able to fill up one more techurocal bid and eubmut the temder documents on wy the aaine day, there waa no difficulty for the peitioner = to submit tender decuments under twe different « covers. . Tt ia difficult to accept that the petitionsr could mot. ot get | an empty cover to submit & tectunical hid separately This court is of the opinion te overcome the mistake comumitted by the petitioner im: 1 submitting two tender decuments under. one cower, the present petition is filed. Therefore the petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dizmiseed.