N G PUTTASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of Annexure-C passed by the third respondent-Commissioner, Davanagere Municipal Corporation releasing food grains for implementation of the contract of various developmental activities as set out in Schedule 1 to Annexure-C.

(2.) THE first petitioner was Ex-Chairman of APMC, Davanagere and the second petitioner was also Ex-Chairman of City Municipality, davanagere. The first petitioner is also a contractor. Both of them are social workers. They claim that they are interested in the welfare of Davanagere City Corporation. Their grievance is that as per Schedule-I to annexure-C, various construction works were undertaken by the second respondent. The said contract was awarded to respondents-4 and 5. The total value of the said contract is Rs. 4,79,04,000-00. As per Annexure-C, food grains were released for being distributed to persons who are employed in the said construction work. It is their further contention that the said allotment of work was done at the behest of the 6th respondent who was uncharge of Municipality of Davanagere district and most of the work is executed in his constituency, Mayakonda. The petitioner contend that respondents-4 and 5, even if they are Governmental agencies, they could not have been entrusted with the said work without calling for tenders under the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999, for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act", as the total value of the work exceeded Rs. 5 lakhs. Therefore, the petitioners seek quashing of Annexure-C and for a writ of mandamus directing respondents-1 to 3 to comply with the Government Order at Annexure-B and entrust the work through calling for public tenders.

(3.) AFTER service of notice, respondents-3 to 5 have entered appearance and they have filed detailed statement of objections. They contend that respondents-4 and 5 to whom contract was entrusted are Governmental agencies and for awarding contract to them, it is not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in the Act. Section 4 (d) of the Act is attracted to the contract in question. Moreover, the entire work entrusted to them has been completed and therefore the writ petition has become anfractuous.