Disposed

Sri P Gopinath Reddy v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/16993/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a short-term tender notification and an order relaxing pre-bid conditions. The court found the tender period had long expired and the petition infructuous due to work completion, reserving liberty to re-examine if a fresh tender is issued.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as it had become infructuous. Liberty was reserved to reiterate contentions if a fresh tender is issued.

Sri P Gopinath Reddy Vs the Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16993 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 16993 OF 2018 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI P GOPINATH REDDY, S/O LATE P CHINNATHAMBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶9

NO.6, BEHIND SANDHYA THEATRE, OLD MADIWALA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶10

C.R VEERANARAYANA CHARY,

¶11

S/O LATE K RAMACHARY,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

NO.705, "SRI.VEERABRAHMA KRUPA", 5TH CROSS, UPKAR RESIDENCY LAYOUT, VISHWANEEDAM (POST), BANGALORE - 560 091.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI S M IRBAZ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VARUN J PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 16993 of 2018

¶21

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (HEALTH AND MSW), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 2, SWM-1 BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 2ND FLOOR, DASAPPA HOSPITAL PREMISES, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶23

STANDING COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI K N PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI V SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R5)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHORT TERM TENDER DATED 14.02.2018 PASSED BY R-3 VIDE ANNXA. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2018 PASSED BY R-4 VIDE ANNX-C WHEREIN THE R-4 HAS RELAXED THE PRE BID TENDER CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF OPENING THE TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL BIDS AND ETC.,

¶28

¶29

WP No. 16993 of 2018

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Challenging Short Term Tender Notification dated 14.02.2018 at Annexure-A and order dated 26.03.2018 at Annexure-C passed by respondent no.4, relaxing pre-bid tender conditions etc, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

On perusal of tender notification at Annexure-A, it is seen that duration of tender is for 90 days. Said period has long expired.

¶34

Learned counsel submit that no interim order was granted in this writ petition. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondents that tender was allotted to successful bidders who have completed tender work.

¶35

Reserving liberty to reiterate his contentions in case fresh tender notification is issued and petitioner's grievance requires, writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

MKM, CT: BHK

Sri P Gopinath Reddy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Gopinath Reddy v. the Commissioner

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 Paridhi Buildcon Private Limited Vs District Registrar

Sri Kiran C Vs Smt. Manasa S Kumara

Sri Chandran Kunnath Vs Sri D Sundaradas

Smt Jayalakshmi v Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Sri G C Thipperudrappa Vs Smt Lakshmidevi

M/S Printers India Vs State of Karnataka