(1.) IN these writ petitions, petitioner is challenging the tender notification dated 27.03.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent inviting tenders from printers for publishing a Co -operative weekly magazin.e by name 'Sahakara'. Petitioner seems to be in the business of printing with the requisite experience in digital printing, publishing and supplying. The tender notification was published on 27.02.2012 fixing the last date fur submitting the tender application as 12.03.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents ought to have given 30 days clear time to the intending applicants as mandated under Rule 17(1)(a) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 for submission of tenders. As the time limit for submitting the tender notification was not adhered to, the entire tender notification is challenged as illegal and unsustainable.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that though this ground was specifically urged in the writ petition and although the 2nd respondent filed their objections it did not meet this contention. However, the 1St respondent which has filed the statement of objections subsequently has sought to contend that the condition imposed providing minimum time for submitting the tenders was reduced to 15 days by the Managing Director after obtaining the approval of the superior authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this statement cannot 13, -; accepted as the Society who was the contesting respondent had failed to take up such a contention at the time when the statement of objection was filed. It is his submission that this contention has not substantiated by producing necessary documents.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the 2nd respondent supports the contention urged by the learned Additional Government Advocate.