K ANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 20. 01. 2006 in proceedings no. KA/im/paravani/tender/chi. PURA/sa, IM, 1/05-06, 3584 vide Annexure-'c' on the file of the 2nd respondent filed the instant writ petition. Further the petitioner sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent-authority to issue Work Orders.

(2.) THE grievance made by the petitioner in the instant petition is that the claiming to be Class-II civil Contractor cum a Gram Panchayath member of the Thimmanayakanahalh Panchayath has filed his tender pursuance to the tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent dated 16. 09. 2005 vide Annexure-R1 produced by the 2nd respondent along with his objections. His tender being the lowest amongst other contractors who have participated in the tender, the same has been accepted without any justification, he was under a fond hope that he will get the work order from the competent authority - 2nd respondent. Be that as it may. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, when he received the impugned order dated 20. 01. 2006 vide annexure-C his tender has not been accepted on the ground that he is the sitting member of the gram Panchayath and he has got the interest directly or indirectly. Hence he was disqualified for participating in the tender, placing reliance on the circular issued by the Government dated: 04. 01. 2006 vide Annexure-D. The impugned order has been passed and communicated to the petitioner. The said circular has been issued under Section 12 r/w Section 280 of the Karnataka panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter called for short 'the Act' ). Assailing the correctioness of the impugned order dated 20. 01. 2006 vide Annexure-C and seeking further direction as stated supra the petitioner herein felt necessitated to presented the instant writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once his tender has been accepted there is no power for the authority to cancel the same without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. To substantiate his submission he had taken through Annexure-B1 to B4 respectively and submitted that his tender has been accepted by the 2nd respondent, once they accepted the tender they are bound to issue the work order to the petitioner. The reliance placed on by the respondent for issue of the impugned order under section 12 r/w Section 280 of the Act is not applicable to the petitioner and is not disputed. He vehemently submitted the fact that he is the Class-II contractor and a sitting member of the Thimmanayakanahalli Panchayath, he has not put up any tender in respect of the Thimmanayakanahalli Gram Panchayath is concerned and there is no representation as such for prohibition in the tender being a concrete in respect of other gram Panchayath. Therefore, the reason assigned for cancelling and not issue of the work order cannot be justified nor permissible under the Panchayath Raj Act. To substantiate his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 1968 (2) HLJ 470 1968 (2) MLJ 470 and another judgment reported in 1991 KLJ 1802 1991 KLJ 180. He submitted that there is no prohibition as such for him to participate in the tender in respect of work carried out to the other gram Panchayath. Therefore he submitted that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent herein is liable to be set aside.