Karnataka High Court
M/S. Manoj Enterprises vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 15 June, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAMA HIGH Mis =
> +, 3 £ 2 x 3 % @ 2 = 3 * = 2 2 ¢ H H :
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE TED THIS THE i5th DAY OF JUNE 2o05. ~ BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. vUSTICE | Noa DAE Spee tor
1.M/s.Mano} Enterprisas ~.
No.la/ is, joes CLOgs "
i Kk Block, Rajajinagar Bangailore-i0 . :
2 M/a.svasthix Blectitcdla.
Ne. 2, IvMain Road, ~ > Byleravanepura, Mysore Read Bangalore- "26 7. .
By its proprieter Sri.Mohan RUMBI o ous 'By @ri.B.Pramod, Advocate) . 7 i ' .
'L.Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Pelike; NOR. Square, Sangalore~ Represented by its Commissioner.
2.The Executive Engineer (Elect! Beuhath Bangalore Mahanagara _ Palike, DaSarahalli Zone . Bangalore-560 O01. ... REGPOUDENTH ify Sri.¢.Shan Ativocate) H MUR! UP RARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Cl :
2
g :
c a £ :
} , & 5 3 £ 4 3 s :
8.6, 2009 --as ~~ er ------Annexures--"C" and WHO"
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of. India Praying to quash Amnegure-"E", the ~ tender notification dated 16.5.2009, issued. by the second respondent. LS These writ petitions comng Os for "orders - Sri.G.Shanthappa, "lee ned. counsel accepts notice for respondents i "and 2.
2. Though the matter is listed for ordars, with the congent of the learned counsel appearing for both, Ene parties, . the matter ie taken up for fing. aise posal.
fae The + petitioners -- asaaiiling -- the a lectnegs.-~ oF the «= Notification ne. Be (ele) /08/72/8-01/9-10 and the Cerrigendum No ESTE (ELEC) Dz /CORRIGENDUM/S-01/9-10 poe dated 35 eae respectively issued py the second sespondent has presented the instant writ petitiong
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Mahanagara Palike on instructions from fe / | BECUASE TES GOUT GE RARNATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT GE KARNATAAA HIGHC Shot Nott isa the Jurisdictional competent authority and on tha basis of the original records fairly submits: that que te inadvertence hey could not. iseue appropriate notification in consonance with the ~ felevant provisions af the Act. . Tharaverey~he BubMIite that tha impugnad 'notification and the corrigendum may be quashed reser 'Lug jibarty te the tespondent~-Corp ration. te Cake necessary steps strictly in consonance with. the provisions of the . "arnataka ° Transparency in public Procurement Act, 1999;
So. The learned counsel for the petitioner submite that the submission made by tha counsel for the respondents as stated supra may be placed on recerd andthe writ petition, may be disposed rae
6. In the light of the submissions made by Che Gearned counsel for respondents as stated gupta, "the -- impugned "notification --~ No. NO.BE (Ble) /O2/T2/E-01/9-10 and the Corrigendum NO. BE (ELEC) /DZ/CORRIGENDUM/E-01/9-10 ~~ datad 3.6.2008 --g8 --per - Annexures-"C"* --and --*E"
COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Hic HO SPE <a" Se A HN, EE SH keSpectively iseued by the sacond respondent are hereby quashed reserving liberty to. _ the tespondent-Mahanagara Palike to proceed further strictly in consonance with the ~ relevant provisions of the Karhateke, Transparency in"
Public Procurament Boh, 4999 and in accordance :
Win law.
7, Sf1.G.Shanthapos, "learned counsel ig parmitted ta Fil, REMC Gf appearance with a titres Rs Sdj= Judge