Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 208 (KAR)

Shivakumar P. v. State of Karnataka

2024-03-11

B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

body2024
ORDER : 1. The petitioner, responding to the public notice dated 22.02.2024 [Annexure-C] issued by the third respondent, has offered a bid of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- for entrustment of collecting parking charges at Private Bus Stand in Sidlaghatta Bus Stand, and the petitioner's case is that he has also deposited the entire bid amount but the second respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 05.03.2024 [Annexure-B] inviting fresh bids on 12.03.2024 for the aforesaid service and another service for which notice was also issued on 05.03.2024. 2. Sri. Ambarisha N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Naveen Chandrashekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition. The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner had indeed offered the highest bid in a sum of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- for entrustment of contract for parking charges at Private Bus Stand in Sidlaghatta Bus Stand, and the petitioner has deposited the entire amount, and insofar as the reason for issuance of fresh Notification on 05.03.2024, the third respondent has recorded that when the file is submitted for necessary approval, the second respondent, taking notice of the fact that a sum of Rs. 3, 91, 000/- was offered for the previous year, has directed re-issuance of the tender notification. If the accepting authority, for the reasons as aforesaid has decided to re-auction, this Court is not persuaded to opine that there is any reason for interference, and the petition must be disposed of accordingly. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may observe that the petitioner can participate in the auction scheduled to be held on 12.03.2024 and to avail the advantage of set off for the amount already deposited in terms of the earlier proceedings. The notification dated 05.03.2024, is perused, and this Court does not see impediment for the petitioner's participation in the auction. It is observed accordingly. Further, this Court must observe that if the petitioner emerges to be the highest bidder, the respondents must permit him to avail the set off for the amount already deposited in terms of the earlier proceedings. 4. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.