High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Babulal Sankhla vs Government Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Babulal Sankhla vs Government Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY or SEPTEMBER, «u

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICIQAJIT .3' 'GU':&;.:Ai;"   

WRIT PETITION No.27596 GE 2315  

Between:

Sri. Babulal Sankhla,

Aged about 35 years,

S/0. M0daram.D,

Proprietor of: t V _e '  
M/s. Bangalore Sales & Mafketillg, 

No. 1/2, 2"" Cross, K_.V. Tempie S.t1'e.,ét, V

Sulthanpet, Ba_ngg'1ore~56O     
_. 2  " .    * ' ....Petit1'oner

[By Sri.  Ktihaetr  ~-Kumgar, Advocates)
And:
1. Governxfiept of 
Department of Tourism.

Vmias Snudha) Gyounri Fioor,
R0._Om2,_No.5, " """ "

 Banga1oree56O 001.

V =RepIjese_I'1ted.Vby its

 Pr1ne1' .,Sec.fefa .

2  2. Karnatakafixhibition Authority.

Doddakere Maidana,

" «  V Aelndiralkfagar,
» My's.Qre~57O 010.
'  Represented by its

Chief Executive Office.



 

[Q

3. Fun World and Resorts India Pvt. Ltd.,
Palace Grounds,
J.C.Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by
Managing Director.   ,\ _   . 

   A ..5_4..Res'p'onden.t's '

(By sn so. Shahapur, AGA}

*:i=*=k$*=i=*:i¢:E; '

This Writ Petition is filed*»i;1"r1~-:ier Articles .226',and 227
of the Constitution of India,"-..praying ' to_ quash the
endorsement dated 18.fl€3.201vO""a'tl._Annexure-X'to the writ
petition rejection of the--..'fender of=theVg'peiitioner and direct
the R2 authority to evaluated---the enam::a;~§. bids of such
Tenders whose Tender has' "passed the 'technical scrutiny

under the Kai'na_ta-ka-'VTransjjerelncyiin Public Procurements
Act, 1999: _g aiicig K'arn_ata}_l~:a""Transparency in Public
ProcureI_r1_.ents" Rules, 2_OO_(.).-._ ' "  V  '

'I't2Vis Writ  on for Preliminary Hearing,
this day, the 'Court rnade' the" following:

 

     is directed to take notice for

Q   responderitsvtiéfl' and 2.

 'A g 2."  Even though the matter is listed for

   hearing, with consent, it is taken up for

    disposal 

2'///if/,



3. The tender notification is published on.._>15"1
July 2010, proposing to organise an 
Mysore City by the second respondent.  K 

also one of the tenderers.- According
for no apparent reason, his
by the said rejection, the sfirst
respondent, by way of appeal of the
Karnataka Transparency–l ‘I5«iiolci’irements Act.
The grievance the Appellate
Authority application for an
interinj’orde’r; this writ petition
for suitabledirecti.oin.’t’o.:tt’h;e”‘Appellate Authority to take

up the matter’ for’ consideration in as much as the

V’ “stat’t:te conteinplatleslllthat the appeai is to be disposed of

iviltlci.ini’a:’period. thirty days from the date it is filed.

the matter is taken up, Mr. S.B.

learned Additional Government Advocate

iilesairnemo to the following effect:

” The 19! respondent in the above Writ
Petition had instructed the undersigned that
the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal,”-T
before the Director, Department of

Khaniia Bhavan, Race Course .7 “”

Bangalore, has filed an appeal .

respondent. In fact, an entliorseniertt
effect is being issued to the:’petitioner”Vin the V’

above writ petition. I-Ie21ce;..Vfl1is mernof’

5. A perusal of indicate that
the Appellate Autt1ority”‘is– the” ibfiepartment of
Tourism, ‘E53_haifan,._«~ ,jRaceW; Course Road,
Bangalore;– ‘inlcleeirlg’*iln4e’–,petitioner is required to file an

appeal before , Department of Tourism.

libe.rty.to___the petitioner to file an appeal.

peti’tior1′._Star1rl’s disposed of. If an application for interim

stayis aiong with the memorandum of appeal,

‘pthe llfiplpellate Authority shall consider the same

A “:lfeitpeditiously, preferably before the appeal is taken up

it for hearing on merits. fl

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Mr. SB. Shahapur, learned

Gevernment Advocate is permitted to fi1_«f:”—m§§r1i”(3 ~

appearance within four weeks fromA»Vtc’d\3.§7’3< Q' 'Q '4 é

' fa-E

BMV* H