M/S.Sreeman Printex vs The Director on 20 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

mmso was THE 20" DAY or SEPTEMBER 2ofi:.o'_i»-.e4_:'i..e_

BEFORE :

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SHANT_A.!~!Au:(§VQl§Ai§'A.R A u
WRIT PETITIQN No.1182[S§iJ()1Qb"'§"GM.-§TEN)::'   

Between :

M/s.Sreeman Préntex

Represented by its Proprietor VA

Prakash, Aged about 41 years, 5

No.77, Magadi Main Road, ' 'A  A

Agrahara Dasarahalii,    2 =  _
Banga!ore--S60 079.'    _  -..~_P7etitioner

( By Sri sr:n.:va;'s._8£1TM.;-3:ria..j_'tt_e'rVma-.i." A.d'~xo_cates
for M/s.SreeV L3_w*_Associia't€;s  '

And :

1. The Da're"(:tor _ _ . ,
Kuvempu Uni_versi'~ty 
Offigce of the Director'

  , p'ireCt0*rate. of Distance Education

A '(3ynasahy--a4d"ri, Shankar Ghatta

A _ 'Sh im A £>i'st_ri_ct.

~Karnat'a5&;a-.__  '

2. THE: Vi'ee--'C'§iance!|or

 Kuvémrju University,

 "C5ynaséhyadri, Shankar Ghatta
*  VS_hi'A'r'A;'1oga District. .. Respondents

A By Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate for R-1)

Ix.)

This Writ Petition is fiied under Articies 226 8: 2:27 of
the Constitution of India praying to direct the resjpo:n=d_e’nt

No.1 to open the seated tender documents

petitioner and to award the tender as ;3er_.t.h’_駔V.tVer.n1s.4_and

conditions of the university of the t’ender. dated.e25’i1i.’2OOHEi–~é

vide Anne)-<ure-A.

This Writ Petition coming ‘on”‘for preiiimi’na’s:yRhVea’ring in Q’

‘B’ group this day, the Court ma.d.e:’th_e”f_oi|oviii’ng._;A

Petition_er§’–.. of the tender
notificationwyitie’:”i’\n.ifiVe){tib_re§::”‘i-‘\”– 25.11.2009 issued by
the respioinderit.Oni’Si’eLrsiot§)i’..oV:”‘3’fh’e’said tender notification was

issued ca||in”g.__’forv the .’4ai3p!.i:’c:at’ions by the intending tenderes

_._for pfiintirig and~–..:svuppIy of education/reading materials

,3″‘.h:e’iV’respondents have fiied the statement of

xii”‘~___VO.bjeCtid’I1$_d3 through their advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar

M

The statement of objections reveai that the tender

submitted by the petitioner is rejected on two grou_nds~..\4»/ii’z.,

(a) that the petitioner had submitted three tend_eir«..co’\;9.?i§!.i,é:’as?’ .

against the prescribed two tender c_o.\ze»r_s an’d”{“b.)f’_’v,that’_the’

tender covers were not sealed with w:a’x.*’ At the tirrre

opening the tenders, other tenderers iovbj’ected’V:’to,i.’o.g3en3 the

tender covers of the Jpetitionerw».on=.__the” afoV.rerVn:’entioned
grounds, inasmuch as, the-tendiehr the petitioner
was not in accordance with Therefore,
the respondents’ tenders of the

petitioner. ____

3. zT.h’is. find any error in action of the

respondentsin Vnotpi-ope_ni’r.o the tenders of the petitioner,

‘3″i-nAasrnju:ch.,A-.ias,A.thextende’rs submitted by the petitioner were

not’in’ac’corci.aii’ice–..with the procedure prescribed. Moreover,

the”o_therV_te’n’;fie:rs are opened and the eiigibie tenderer has

i’~.«._”been asrigned with the work. Such seiected tenderer is also

the work. In View of the same, nothing stirvives

consideration in this petition. Be that as it may, this

r”

Court does not find any ground to interfere in the tender

process on merits as aforementioned.

Accordingiy, the petition faiis and the

dismissed

*bk/