Karnataka High Court
M/S Kumar Security Service vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, S Rachaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL No.200052/2022 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S. KUMAR SECURITY SERVICE,
NO.36 & 27 NEARBY RAILWAY UNDERBRIDGE,
DATTA NAGAR, N.G.O. COLONY,
TQ. & DIST: KALABURAGI-585 102.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. MAHESH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
NO.36 & 27 NEARBY RAILWAY UNDER BRIDGE,
DATTA NAGAR, N.G.O. COLONY,
TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALURU-560 001.
2
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & EX-OFFICIO
DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR,
SAMAGRA SHIKSHAN KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI, I-WAN-E-SHAI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIRANAGOUDA M.BIRADAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER
DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.200075/2022 (GM-TEN) BY FULLY
ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED AND SUCH FURTHER
ORDER OTHER RELIEFS BE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONERS
TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS WOULD BE FOUND ENTITLED
TO ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, the learned
counsel for the appellant.
02. The learned Additional Government Advocate is
permitted to file memo of appearance for the respondents.
03. The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging
order dated 12.01.2022 in W.P.No.200075/2022. The appellant
challenged tender notification dated 24.12.2021 in the said writ
petition. The learned Single Judge allowed writ petition and
quashed tender notification dated 24.12.2021 and gave liberty
to the tender inviting authority to re-issue fresh tender, if so
advised.
04. The grievance of the appellant is that he was an
applicant when tender notification was firstly issued on
14.09.2021 and therefore, he submits that without calling
fresh tender notification, the tender inviting authority could be
directed to reopen earlier tender notification dated 14.09.2021.
05. It is not in dispute that when tender notification
was subsequently issued on 24.12.2021, the first tender
notification dated 14.09.2021 was withdrawn. This withdrawal
was not challenged by the petitioner. If he was really aggrieved,
he could have challenged the withdrawal of first tender. Even
though the writ petition filed by him is allowed, he wants
earlier tender notification dated 14.09.2021 to be revived, just
because it was favourable to him. The learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the tender inviting authority is likely to
impose extra conditions, on account of which the appellant
may not be able to participate in the tender.
06. If on account of imposition of extra conditions, the
appellant finds it difficult to participate in the new tender, it
cannot be ground for challenging the impugned order.
07. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and therefore we do not find any
merit to admit this writ appeal. Writ appeal is dismissed.
08. Liberty is granted to the appellant to participate in
the new tender if he is qualified.
09. In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.1/2022
for stay does not survive for consideration, hence it is also
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
