LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-392

MOHAMED ISHAQH, S/O ABDUL BASITH, PROPRIETOR, LIMRA ASSOCIATES Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER@RESPO

Decided On March 11, 2011
Mohamed Ishaqh, S/O Abdul Basith, Proprietor, Limra Associates Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka, By Its Commissioner And Secretary, Dept. Of Health And Family Welfare, The Chief Medical Officer, Taluk General Hospital And The Deputy Commissioner@Respo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH Petitioner has sought for a declaration that condition No. 6(i) of the tender form is illegal and contrary to condition No. 7 of the notification issued by the State Government vide Annexure -D, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. D.S. Hosmath submits that this prayer is not pressed at present and that the Petitioner will be satisfied if the second prayer made regarding the direction sought to Respondent No. 2 to issue tender form to the Petitioner is allowed and the Petitioner is permitted to participate in the process in accordance with law.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner was desirous of participating in the tender and therefore approached Respondent No. 2 seeking issue of tender forms, the request made was rejected and the Petitioner was not furnished with the tender forms and therefore, he was unable to submit the tenders. It is his contention that as the last date for issuing tender forms was 10.03.2011, Petitioner was forced to approach this Court when the forms were not issued.

(3.) THOUGH this is a disputed question of fact, it is to be seen that the Petitioner had in fact approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing a writ petition aggrieved by the cancellation of his contract on the ground that he had produced incorrect certificates regarding his past experience. The grievance of the Petitioner is that because he had approached this Court earlier, Respondent No. 2 denied the opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the tender process by denying issue of tender forms. As the Petitioner is desirous of participating in the tender process and as he has approached this Court well within time, I find that a direction has to be issued to Respondent No. 2 to issue the tender form immediately.