D B MASUR Vs. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals have been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21-9-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 9865 of 2001 (M. K. Hegde Constructions Private Limited, Dharwad v The Karnatak university, Dharwad and Others), whereby the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner therein, in accordance with law.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are, that in order to commemorate the Golden Jubilee of the Karnataka University, dharwad, the 1st respondent issued a notification dated 24-11-2000, inviting pre-qualification tenders and in response to that 15 contractors including D. B. Masur and M. K. Hegde Constructions Private Limited submitted the pre-qualification tenders. Out of them 10 tenderers were found qualified. The third respondent issued a communication dated 12-2-2001 (Annexure-D) calling upon the interested contractors desirous of taking part in the above works to submit an application along with prescribed fee of Rs. 6,264/- by way of DD and shall obtain blank tender forms on or before 19-2-2001 and the tender documents shall be submitted within 4 p. m. on or before 26-2-2001. It is made clear a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 2,09,520/- from any Scheduled Bank or other Banks by way of EMD in favour of Finance Officer, Karnataka University, Dharwad, should be in the first cover and in the second cover they should submit the original and duplicate tender forms duly filled upon along with documents. In pursuance of Annexure-D, seven tenders were received; out of them five tenders were received in two covers as required and M. K. Hegde Constructions Private Limited had submitted only one cover containing both the demand draft as well as the tender forms.

(3.) THE grievance of M. K. Hegde Constructions Private Limited was that the Building Committee has accepted the tender of D. B. Masur without opening its tenders. Hence, M. K. Hegde Constructions Private limited, filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 9865 of 2001 for a mandamus liirecting the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner and to evaluate the same along with others and to award the tender to the petitioner as it is the lowest tender.