KARNATKAA COMMERCIAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The top noted writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus directing the second respondent herein to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender as per Tender Notification dated 24.02.2020 and also to declare that the petitioner is eligible to participate in the tender as per Tender Notification dated 24.02.2020. In the alternative, the petitioner has also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent herein to take decision on the representation dated 10.03.2020.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent had floated a tender on 30.10.2017 and for the above said tender, the bid of the petitioner was accepted by the second respondent and accordingly, contract was awarded on 29.5.2018. It is averred in para

(3.) of the writ petition that when the petitioner started to construct the toll plaza in the premises to collect the user fee as per the aforesaid tender agreement, petitioner faced difficulty to carry out its obligations on account of violent protests by various stake holders including the local people who opposed to the institution of the toll plaza in the premises and on account of aforesaid reasons, the petitioner could not commence the collection of user fee and for this precise reasons failed to remit the user fee collected by them as agreed in the agreement. This led to termination of agreement and forfeiture of bank guarantee. The petitioner raised a dispute in regard to the termination and payment of user fee collection and arbitration proceedings are initiated and the same are pending adjudication. At para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred and contended that the second respondent has floated a new request for proposal/tender on 24.02.2020 inviting bids from agencies for rendering provision of services for collection of user fee from toll plaza near Bheemakkanahalli and Bechagondanahalli villages on Hosakote to Chintamani Bypass Road, Karnataka, which was in fact awarded to the present petitioner herein vide earlier notification dated 30.10.2017. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K. Manu, learned counsel appearing for the contesting second respondent and the learned AGA for respondent No.1.