Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fii in P R Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2011Matching Fragments
3. The express case bfif is,iithat vested interests oft" the BBMP are achieving process of hoiding elections to pointed out, that on the expiryiigf theitifvonncillors of the BBMP, the State einiiedministrator to carry on the functiorisend the BBMP. The position projected is, ».tlti£:tt..veste'd..Viriterests controiling the affairs of the BBMP, iihaxtje bveen.4e>;p1oiting the situation through the Administrator, 1" 'the State government.
4. the issue of holding elections, it is submitted, that iii'?-hpetijttioner No.1 herein (P.R.Ramesh) under the apprehension, ..._that the State government may not hoid elections to the BBMP, approached this Court by fiiing W.P.No.15482/2006, requiring this Court to direct the State government to hold elections, for the BBMP in terms of the mandate centained in the Constitution of India. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that under Articie 2432A of the Constitution vofflinltiia, the superintendence, direction, control and con_cj'x"1:1;ct.',,'of eieotions to, Municipalities, including the preparation electoral' rolls, is vested in the State Election 'itiiis':si;h:V1'iitted,A if that for holding elections, 1'1a'v.ei the State government, has also to determine, the numherziiof. sea:,s;Htio"«'fi:fei:al,located to each Ward.
2. For the reasons stated supra they have requested this Court to permit the BBM? for removal of Solid Material Waste. in View of expiry of the term contract awarded as an alternative arrangements till the contract is awarded 2} Unless the same is answered, no steps can be taken by the State Government for processing the papers and placing the same before the elected body of the BBIVEP as requested by the learned Advocate General for the State Government that would be a futile exercise. Therefore, they submit that further process can not be made in respect of the fiies which are already submitte'd._ by the Commissioner of BBMP to the State government-.'and this court such relief in favour of the State goverrimer:t,at.. this stage. ' " ' *
proposed expenditure was Rs
19. Having conipiied 'the "aforesaid procedural requirements, the fii"st'i_oi' notifications dated 23.09.2009 appiications for pre--qua1ii7ieatpio1§i;" --of'iworks'coVered under "Sections 1 and 2" refe;f:1ed"i%:o'*herein above. The aforesaid notification inviting 'tor pre--qualifications was published tithe eapirocurement platform, at the very first Tfhereafter on 26.09.2009, an advertisement was piiblishiedii a national English daily ie., the Times of india, 3 a_is'o",¢ in a Kannada daily newspaper ie., Prajavani (which the largest circuiation amongst Kannada newspapers 2 ""pub1isheci in the State of Karnataka) inviting desirous parties for pre--qua1ification. On 01.10.2009 the impugned addendum notification "AnneXure~B" and the third impugned 3}.
"tin.42
Transparency Act. So far as the controversy in hand is concerned, the other relevant provisions of the Transparency Act are Section 2 (h) (i) 8:, (i) as also Sections 5, 8. The aforesaid provisions are being reproduced A' "2(h) "Tender" means the formal offer,V_rriavde.l.::fo.r suppiyiof goods or services in response -to an invitation__ior'._tende'r_V published in a Tender Buiietin;
(1) "Tender Accepting: Autho--rit§r" means "an officervor a Committee appointed tofiaccept V tend'e.rs'=,_and. 'a "1"e.:g1der Inviting Authority" m'eans an "o_fii'eei'* or a Committee appointed to invite tende_r_s;'iind_er Section 9:}