M/S.Betala Associates vs The Director General And on 21 October, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2191' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010.

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANAE'.LAY1KN}'ik_".  _

wan' PETITION NO.32603 032099 £GM--5.'.E1§1:    E  A

BETWEEN:

M/s.Beta}a Associates,
Represented by its Power of
Attorney Holder

Sri.M.G.Beta1a,

Aged 65 Years,

Registered Office No.85, V V
11 Stage, II Phase,  V  
West of Chord Rozid,' 
Mahalakshnnp1__1r3m,1dliV_,_  '

BANGALORE 4 E$6§)'§)86*.»    A 

(By sz-1.c.N.VK¢s1w_avaM§:;r£h3z,:tA(1v.)

ANI):

  " .'VI'fieV.I)i'i'i*ector Gertefol and

 ' ;IflSp€C_fO1':'Gé'I1_€I'a1 0fPo1ice,
 .C%tov'e1m:Inentf of Karnataka,
'No".'2, Nrugyathunga Road,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

A   The Direct Purchase Committee,

 .Represented by its Chairman,
"The office of the Director
General and Inspector

A ' General of Police,

I

. . PETITIONER.

LU'/\



Government of Karnataka,
No.2, Nrupathunga Road, 
BANGALORE - 560 001. .. 

(By Sri.R.B.Satyanarayan
Singh, HCGP)

*~=l¢_*_*_*_*_=Ir V

This Petition is filed under  

Constitution of India, praying topequasviifiifinexure 5¥~~"C"tV 
22.10.2009 of the respondent  rejecting' thefeid. ef the . 0'

petitioner and to direct the r€SpOV11’1{l01]tV Nos’-. to open
the price bids submitted, th.e”petitio’n.er thetender of
Government of Karnataka,”Po1ice= _U{epai’t:i1ei1t._No.77/STS-I (3)
08-09 dated 10.08.2009 a:..A_nneiatre~”+'”Af.. and decide the

issue within the specified period: izieccorvdaiice with law.
This Petiti_on;:”isaxcdoimn’ aiy Hearing — B
Group this ~da”y;e rt}?-C Gd}?-.1rt”i.i.1pa.de the-ewfollowingz

The.1insnccessft1l bidder for supply of items referred to

‘tendern0tifi’cation at”Annexure — has come up in this

petition rejection of his bid vide Annexure —

t’NOW___* this matter. learned Government Pleader

‘for the respondents has brought to the notice of

Cottirt that pursuant to the tender notification at

it – “A”, the bid of other tenderers are accepted. In

“””i

pursuance of that, the successful bidders have supplied the
goods and payments have also been made to them. Fuxther

the EMS deposit made by the petitioner in respect ojfvtheoffer

that was made, was also returned to him and heftlasi

the same.

2. In the light of that, nothing for_»co:1’1sideration.

Hence the writ petition is dismissed’; as it 1t_a’s…..’0eCOIr1e’

._”

infructuous.

Tudqg

AGV.