High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Spot Free Solutions, vs M/S Bangalore Metropolitan … on 27 July, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Spot Free Solutions, vs M/S Bangalore Metropolitan … on 27 July, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27" my o:= JULY-, 2010  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHA'»!§£ s;~+.4rqT;aor§JTAL;oL:tjgQ§:év»T_QT

WRIT PETITION NO;'1V46.88/V201'Q (EM~T'E;:~n f;
BETWEEN: L' » .  V'

M/s.Spot Free Solutions"=  _ 

A Propriety Firm  V g ~   
No.11, C)pposite,*Kavika"F'act'ory'  V'
Mysore Road        
Bangaiore~26 44 

By its Propéieto-r"~__ ' ' . 
Mr.Shashi_.ENa'naia%1,__ ., V
Aged 33 vears:7_T  '   
S/0.K.M.Nar:a.na:i"a'*-._4* _   ' - .. PETITIONER

(By Sri 3aya_k"umé'rh§'.A!5atVi:'|";...E.§énior Counsel for
Sri S.Ka'I"*y§n vE5,z:sa'\;faré'%:a}', Adv.,)

    Metropolitan

r "E'*rTanSpo;rt_ Corporation
AC;entr,a.| Clfiices
K". H . R0 3 d'
BaTTga3iore~27

 " 'E-Ky its Managing Director



I J
I

2. Controller of Stores and Purchase
Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation
Central Offices
K3-I.Road
Bangalore-27

3. Director Technical
Bangalore Metropolitan

Transport Corporation   

Central Offices 1 C

K.H.Road     " _ ~  
Bangalore~27  _ .;---RErSPON,{).E.N"iS  "

(By Sri P.D.Surana, Adv., for 
R2 & R3 -- served)  

This iivrit_.."peti'ti'on 'i'sc'j*-fcilledV"under-- Articles 226 and 227
of the Covnstétuti'-on o.'r'_VIVndi'a=,r_pray_?éng to quash the order
dated :23.3."20f1O rej'ectin'g' the bid made by the petitioner
in respect._ of Vte'i:d.e'r'i N'oi._B'Mfl'C/2089/O8S--CALL--2 produced
at Annexure-A,--et'c.  _.

This ii}ie~rit"peVtitio'n Corning on for preliminary hearing

_ in B.-_§G'rVOsLIp, th'is.c_:lay the Court made the following:--

ORDER

Th.e”‘tie:’i:;der application filed by the petitioner is

rAe\ject’e.dp*as is clear from the document at Annexure-/-\,

ground that the original documents were not

li/>

furnished by the petitioner within the prescribed
penod.

Since it is open for the petitioner to fiiean

appea! under Section 16 of the

Transparency in Pubiic Procurements

Court deciines to entertain this wJrAi>t’p’etVit-i.on; .

Hence, writ petition is_.dismi.ssed. ITtf:As:’oper;=.4

the petitioner to fiie an _befo’re.”‘tre erppeéiate
authority if it so Choos.e’s«._. if.’_Vno§t§.Aéi:«rVee{‘ciy filed; it