MR HARSHA VARDHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for Mr.Mahamad Tahir A., learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender process, in cases of the bidders who have participated in more than one ward, in accordance with clause 3.4.2 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender in respect of Ward No.26 by excluding respondent No.6 in the light of condition No.3.4.1 (B) Sl.No.(ii) and 3.4.2 of Request for Proposal. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to finalize the tender process of the bidders in compliance with the condition No.3.4.1 (B) Sl.No.(ii) and 3.4.2 of the Request for Proposal.

(3.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the respondent No.5 had floated a tender in January 2019 for Primary door to door collection and transportation of segregated wet waste, sanitary waste and street sweeping waste in 198 wards of Bangalore City. The last date for submission of the bid was 20.02.2019. The last date of submission of the bids was extended from time to time and was eventually fixed on 10.05.2019. The petitioner submitted his bid for Ward No.26 whereas, respondent No.6 has submitted his bid for Ward Nos.9 and 26. In respect of Ward No.26, the petitioner and respondent No.6 are the only two tenderers whose bids were found to be technically qualified. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 has opened the financial bid of the petitioner and respondent No.6 and even in respect of Ward No.26, respondent No.6 has been declared as the lowest bidder. It is the case of the petitioner that the bid in respect of Ward No.26 has not been evaluated strictly in accordance with the tender conditions. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a representation on 31.05.2019 as well as on 29.06.2019. However, the representation submitted by the petitioner failed to evoke any response. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.