MALNADU ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner is as to stipulation of tender condition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that such a condition could not have been stipulated at all and that there is no relationship between the condition stipulated and the object sought to be achieved by such stipulation and therefore the same being arbitrary & unreasonable is liable to be voided.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and THE learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 vehemently oppose the petition contending that what all the conditions should be stipulated in a tender is a matter left to the tenderer; that a host of factors enter the fray in such stipulation and therefore the writ court cannot run a race of opinions in that regard. They bank upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.16610/2022 between M/s. Geetha Electrical Stores vs. State of Karnataka & others disposed off on 9/9/2022. So contending they seek dismissal of writ petition. However learned Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 having vociferously opposed the petition now graciously agrees to instruct his client to consider petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the respondents that in matters relating to stipulation of tender conditions, ordinarily the writ court would not grant indulgence. With this, petitioner is not being sent home empty handed since Respondent No.3 would consider petitioner's representation within the framework of law.