AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though I.A.1/18 is filed seeking that the interim order granted by this court be modified, on taking note that this court through order dated 12.12.2017 has only indicated to the Tender Scrutiny Committee and the Tender Accepting Authority to proceed further without being bound by the observations contained in the order dated 21.10.2017 of the Appellate Authority which is impugned herein, instead of adverting to the contentions relating to the modification of the order, the petition itself is taken up for consideration as it lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned counsel and senior counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is assailing the order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.7 at Annmexure-A to the petition. The petitioner herein as also respondents 5 and 6 had responded to the tender notification floated by the respondent No.2 as at Annexure-B to the petition. During the pendency of the process of evaluation, the petitioner herein as also respondents 5 and 6 had filed the appeals before the respondent No.7 in Appeal Nos.6/17 and 7/17. The appeals had been filed by invoking the provisions as contained under Section 16 of The Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act. The Appellate Authority while taking note of the appeals had referred to the relevant provisions as contained in the KTPP Act and was of the opinion that the appeals filed by the petitioner herein as also by the respondents 5 and 6 were premature. It is not in dispute that the tender process has not been completed and no determinable right between the parties has been made. Hence, the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority to arrive at the conclusion that the appeals are premature is justified. The only question therefore is, whether the Appellate Authority having arrived at such conclusion, could have made further observations in the nature of directions to conclude the process in a particular manner. The petitioner-claimant being aggrieved only insofar as the further directions issued by the Appellate Authority after holding the appeals as premature, is before this court.

(3.) Having taken note of the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 as also the learned Government Advocate, there can be no quarrel with regard to the legal position that when an Authority or a Court does not choose to exercise the right on the ground that the proceedings before it is without cause of action or is premature, no further consideration could be made since the parties would have to go through the process and only if there are grievances thereafter such party would have to avail such remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, insofar as the observations to the following effect in the impugned order stands set aside.