DHURGHAMBHIKA SWA SAHAYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these batch of writ petitions, petitioners have challenged e -tender Notifications (Notice inviting e -tender through e -procurement) issued by Mahila Supplementary Production Training Centers of different Talukas.

(2.) AS the questions raised and facts leading to these writ petitions are common and similar to all these writ petitions they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) AT the outset, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate submit that questions raised in these writ petitions have been considered and decided in W.P.No.106212/2014 dated 17.09.2014 by the Dharwad Bench. Whereas, Sri.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Taluka Mahila Supplementary Production Training Centers in some of these writ petitions has strongly contended that the Judgment rendered by the Dharwad Bench has not considered certain legal aspects and therefore these writ petitions have to be independently considered on their respective merits. At any rate, it is urged by the learned counsel that certain provisions of The Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of convenience) including the policy decision behind issue of impugned tender notifications has not been considered in the case referred to supra, hence the same cannot be made basis to dispose of these cases.