Disposed

M/S.Vahini Development Society v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2019WP/114312/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed an interim stay order pending the outcome of a writ petition regarding public tenders. The Court disposed of the petition by vacating the interim stay and directing the Executive Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the interim order dated 26.09.2019 and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order.

M/S.Vahini Development Society Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.114312/2019 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S.VAHINI DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY SHRI.VEERABHDRESHWAR NILAYA, 12^TH CROSS, MG NAGAR, HOSPETE-583203, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. SHIVAKUMAR.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDNIG, BENGALURU.

¶12

COMMISSIONER

¶13

RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION DIVISION, BALLRI, 2^ND FLOOR, "E" BLOCK, K.H.B. BUILDING, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WATER SUPPLY & SANITATIN DIVISION, INFANTRY ROAD, UPSTAIR OF SBM, CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: i. TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED E-TENDER NO.EE/RDWSD/BLY/ IEC/HJRD/2019-20 DATED 14.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H; AND ii. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.09.2019 AT ANNEXURE-J AND TO ISSUE WORK ORDER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE WITH THE WORK FOR THE PERIOD OF 2019-20 AS PER ANNEXURE-F DATED 06.06.2019.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶22

In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of Annexure-H dated 14.09.2019 and Annexure-F dated 06.06.2019 and obtained an interim order on 26.09.2019. Respondent No.3 has filed an application for vacating the interim order.

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

The concerned respondent invited tender on 04.11.2015 for implementation of drinking water and related activities for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The tender process and other things could not be finalized timely and consequently tender process was finalized with effect from 01.02.2018 for a period of 2017-18 and 2018-19.

¶25

In this backdrop, petitioners and others were stated to have addressed the concerned officer to extend tender for the year 2019-20. In this regard, the Commissioner communicated the decision to the Chief Executive Officer of 26 Zilla Panchayats on 06.06.2019. Prima facie it is yet to be implemented. It is an internal correspondence.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Annexure-S series from the objections to interim order. Perusal of the documents at Annexure-S series there is no reference to Annexure-F dated 06.06.2019. Thus, as on today, order dated 06.06.2019 had not been

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

implemented by the concerned Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayats.

¶29

Hence the interim order granted on

¶30

26.09.2019 stands vacated.

¶31

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted for disposal of the main petition itself and sought for consideration of their grievance by the concerned officer, for which respondents have no objection.

¶32

Accordingly, the concerned respondent is hereby directed to take note of the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with relevant provision of law or scheme at the earliest and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶33

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

gab

M/S.Vahini Development Society v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Vahini Development Society v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Poojari Vs the Registrar General

Sri. Tanoji S/O Ganapathi Kondekar Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

The State Government Vs the Director

Sri. Obalaraju Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Pooja C Sarangamath Vs the Registrar

Ravi S/O Basappa Ganiger Vs the State of Karnataka