{"id":75205,"date":"2010-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-05T12:19:12","modified_gmt":"2018-07-05T06:49:12","slug":"akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of … on 21 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of … on 21 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
 \n\n-1-\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA,~ \n\nDATED THIS THE 22'\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1OE  agony\" A\n\nWRIT PETITION No. ',]\"'.\"\u00bb\u00bbq'VVV:'9-V1'.8'VV\ufb02F 2003. (1.3%.-BM?)\nAND WRIT PETITION .N0\u00a7:1}\u00a3\u00ab55V4'\u00ab5'65\/2009(LB-BMP)\n\n1Nw.P.13918g2008:    '\n\nAKRUTI CITIfY'L'.f?D   T. A V\nFORNEERLY 'Is:NO*c~;r:~.%_As2..  \"  A  *\n\nAI{RU'I'I NIRMAN LTD, -AKRUTI NIRMAN LTD.,\nAKRUT'I TRADEVROAD NO.\"\/', MAROL\n\nMIDC;1AN]_3H'E.RI 1\u00a5LAST,~MU\u00bbMBAI--400 093\n\nALSO AT._G2, PLUME'.RLA,\"1_, JOHN ARMSTRONG\n\nROAD, RIC-I:IARDS'fII)7W1V';~--'B'LORE--5, REPTD BY\n\n1*1s,A.IJTHOR1zEIJ REPRESENTATIVE HEMANT\n. -  _ -_  PETf'I'IONER\n\n'V 'A ' 153\/  :_BRIJESH PATIL, ADV)\n\n 'I\u00a71s\"H1GHNEss THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA\n\"  BHAVAN ROAD,\nRAJ BHAVAN,\n\nV  BANGALORE\n\nRERBY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY\nTO GOVERNOR\n\nV' \" H2 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA\n\nTHROUGH ITS SECRETARY\nHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT\nM.S. BUILDING, }3ANGALORE--1.\n\nDAY_JQF__$EP'I'E1\"vfE\u00a7EfE,,4_2O 115 '   G. \n\n\n\n \n\nTHE COMMISSIONER  \"  *\nBRUHATI-I BANGALORE MAHANAGARAR I  I\nN.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE  ._ -- \" *\n\nTIIE ADMINISTRATOR   ..   _ ' ' \nBRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PAI\nN.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE  ' y .\n\nMAVERICK HOLDING es: IN'JESTMEN'1'S_(P) LTDI\n'78\/1, NEWKRROAIL),    \nBASAWANGUDL  _\n\nBANGALORE  ~ -      \nRERBY THE DIRECTOR ;'B.G.UDA'{;~. _ \nKJoTHIRAMALINGAMi.=  ._  j'\nPRESI$NTL.1\"EtIQLDI?IZ{G TI\"I_E'OF'FIC'E OF THE\n\n   \nHO'U_VsING.'ANB UR'EAN_ DEVELOPMENT,\n\n .M..CSA. 'BUILEING,\u00bb.BANGALORE; 1.\n\n DR P  \n\n'EX--ADD--I'I'1'ONAL 'COL\/I1x~1IssIONER (FINANCE)\nBANGALORE MAIIANAGARA PALIKE,\nN.R:sQUARE, I-2=ANGALORE--56O 002\n\n' \" R\/AT C\u00bb 504; RANKA CORNER, 4TH F DOOR.\n'  V _CAMBRID'GE_._.ROAD, OPP. SAIBABA TEMPLE,\n BANGALORE~56O O08\n\n --  RANGANATH\n'EX-~CI--}'~1I5;F ENGINEER (PROJECTS)\n\nBANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,\n\n.Rv.SQUARE, BANGALORE660 002\n~. R;\/AT 32, SRINIVASA ENCLAVE,\n\" I-ST CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,\n\nIu\ufb01(RIADELE'I'ED VIDE C.O. 6.11.08)\n\nBANGALORE--56O O79\n. .. RESPONDENTS\n\n(BY SRLM KESI-LAVA REDDY, AGA)\nI (By M\/S I ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS, FOR R3-4 )\n(BY M\/S. JUST LAW A\/S FOR R5)\n\nTHIS W.P. FILED PRAYING \"PO CALL FOR RECORDS AND\n\nDECLARE THAT THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE\n\nUL\n\n\n\n \n\n-3-\n\nANNEX-AR TO THE WRIT PE'I'iTION TO AWARD  :EO\u00abR\n\nPROJECT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING .,COM1?_L'I-;X FOR'. 4_\nTHE ECONOMICALLY WEKER SECTIONS OF_sO_O1E'IY.V {Ews} AT \nEJIPURA, KORAMANGALA, TO RESP.ON_DEN'_'\u00a3' NO.'5;V~iS\"II_.LTEG:AL ' D.\n\nAND QUASH THE SAME.\n\nIN W.P. 14564-65 OF 2009\n\n3. NOORJAAN   _  ..\nW\/O MOHAMMED GOUS.  ;\nAGE 31 YEARS I  2   \nR\/AT No.23, BLC'-CK. .13, EWS QUARTERS\nKORAMANGAIA,:;BANQALO'REj47. j'\n\nAGE_52j_YEARS \u00bb  '_ T\nVR.[AT\"?._3. ,' Emciz. NO_.23,~ EWS~QUAR'1'ERS\n1' KORA.NL1X_vNGALPT,_4B.\u00a3\u00a7NGALORE 47.\n\n2 PYARE\";1.AN.w'-\/O 1:;.1{\u00a7H.AD'ER*\u00ab'BTAsHA,\n\n PETITIONERS\n\n{By Sri' ':  )\n\n....... . ..\n\nA 1 -.1_ _ BRUBAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE\n\n\" A.  2\n. VRP3_P._BY\"i'I'S COMMiSSIONER.\n._ v  RESPONDENT\n\n{BS7  '::_  S PA, ADV }\n\n..  'TB'-ESEHE PETITIONS FILED PRAYING TO DiRECT TO\n*  'C,O_Ml\\\/LANDING THE RESPONDENT TO START RE~\n-CONSTRUCTION OF THE E.w.s. QUARTERS IN KORAMANGALA\n\n[BANGALORE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY AND COMPLETE\n\n\"THE SAME WITHIN A TIME FRAME AND ETC.\n\nTHESE PETETIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND\nRESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT\nDELIVERED THE F OLLOVVING:\n\n\n\n \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
The first petition is filed by the ladder\u00bb <\/p>\n
calling in question the order dt.  An11eX1ireL’jS,Bl:’of ii.<\/p>\n
the State of Karnataka: _awarding the .contract”‘l <\/p>\n
development of a Housing corniplex  Weaker
\nSections for short at  to the 5*”
\nrespondent; while the by displaced
\nresidents of  dismantled, for a
\nwrit of  7  V. l l<\/p>\n
 2,’  ‘oi\ufb01approximately 13 1\/2 acres of land in<\/p>\n
Ei3’ipura._.p4Korarnangala;’\u00abBangalore, belonging to the erstwhile<\/p>\n
Co’rporatioln”o,f_lCity of Bangalore, reconstituted as Bangalore<\/p>\n
  Palilie (BMP) and presently the Bruhat<\/p>\n
I    Palike {BBMP), a residential complex<\/p>\n
lconsi_s’tinlg< of 1512 flats in 42 blocks were constructed<\/p>\n
 AA  the years 1987432 and allotted to persons belonging<\/p>\n
" –toE5EWS. The construction when found to have serious<\/p>\n
 inherent defects, demonstrated by collapse of a building<\/p>\n
block, led to an enquiry, and a recommendation to demolish<\/p>\n
the building, followed by a decision to reconstruct<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
..s..\n<\/p>\n
approximately 1640 residential \ufb02ats through a eorripetivtive<\/p>\n
bidding process.\n<\/p>\n
3. The BMP issued a riotificatioln 14l{)’,.2Cv0\u00a2i’; <\/p>\n
published in the newspapers}. invlitingl”– ‘_E’::.pres’sion”‘l–.of<\/p>\n
Interest’. for short ‘EOE’ for redevelopment’ log Ew’siVviibus:ng’<\/p>\n
complex and developmenti…..oilv._ comrnercialp Hclomplex at
\nKoramangala, Bangalore–onc__ab\u00a7\u00bbut’*lttl_.ilV:acres of land. The
\npetitioner amongst   5th respondent
\n BBMP by letter dt.\n<\/p>\n
1.1.2005  the petitioner for presentation
\nand  at the Meeting Hall of the BMP.<\/p>\n
HaVi”ng regard\ufb02lltlo the magnitude of the buildings to be<\/p>\n
  and to decide the terms and conditions<\/p>\n
 ._  .a=.’:durable Private Public Participation (PPP]<\/p>\n
 and policy, the BMP by resolution dt. 11.2.2005<\/p>\n
 up Ann.e’>:–ure–M appointed Infrastructure Development<\/p>\n
ll –..gl’C.ourporation (Karnataka) India, for short {DECK as Advisor<\/p>\n
 Assistant for the said project.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
-9-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.1,35,00,000\/– as QMF, hence placed <\/p>\n
preferred bidder, as indicated in_-“the::j~’.. <\/p>\n
24.2.2006 Annexure–P.\n<\/p>\n
9. It is the a1legatior_1\ufb01_f:ofvpetitioner\ufb02that the 5″!
\nrespondent’s offer oils. QMF, though
\nplaced secondin  netertheless in active
\n     the BMP illegally
\n   document, corrected\/
\n as to accommodate the 5th
\nrespondent,.  it is alleged that the officials of<\/p>\n
  created,….reports of ‘M\/s Manasa Consultants’<\/p>\n
  —.’\u00a7\\\/lanasa’ and M\/s Strut Geo Tech<\/p>\n
.0  for short ‘Strut Geo’, to support the bid of<\/p>\n
the  respondent as more feasible following which the<\/p>\n
“:0: w.:co’p\u00ab1ncil of the BM? on 30.10.2006 resolved to award the<\/p>\n
 contract to the 5th respondent, Annexure–R.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
,1 O.\n<\/p>\n
10. The petitioner having  ‘e’r_:o”I’*:~;=,.I’erred<\/p>\n
W.P.No. 16216\/06, this court ordered inte_rin’i'”the<\/p>\n
resolution Dt. 30.i0.200e of the B]\\.’i’P,”:\\tIheif1ce, it<\/p>\n
stated that it was furnished <\/p>\n
of 531 respondents
\nhandwritten insertions.\n<\/p>\n
under RTI Act,  ‘4’that”discrepancies were
\nnoticed in the  number of car
\nparking   repondent had
\nconductledv  a manner, so as to eliminate<\/p>\n
the pVeti’tio.ner’-__ thy; ‘addressing letters to the BMP,<\/p>\n
  AA, stating that 750 car parking<\/p>\n
‘  “space>sijvere’~ not taken into consideration and if so done,<\/p>\n
it A iiifouldgivncrease the revenue to BMP. It is further alleged<\/p>\n
thatitihe queries under the RTI Act revealed that there<\/p>\n
  no formal agreements with M\/s ‘Manasa’ and<\/p>\n
 ‘Strud Geo’ to utilise their services for the project.<\/p>\n
I\/L<\/p>\n
.11.\n<\/p>\n
11. The interim order in the writ  is<\/p>\n
stated was modified to enable the Goverriifnent’ a<\/p>\n
decision on the resolution oftthep  <\/p>\n
decision in the Writ A’
\nconsidered the matter\u00bb’~uriderA.”Siecti0ni_,  of the
\nKarnataka Municipal   for short
\n‘Corporation Act’,   appointed
\nby the   Rule, in the<\/p>\n
meeting’  ‘decided to cancel the<\/p>\n
resolution of the council of BMP, while<\/p>\n
the C}uovernor.__iVs*._ to have passed an order dt.<\/p>\n
,_:2′:B.5,f20,(_38 l(AiAi’I”e’:.’..t.i.1\u00ab”i’g the department and BBMP to take<\/p>\n
‘  matter, particularly in View of the urgency<\/p>\n
  proyxiideiil adequate shelter to the displaced families.<\/p>\n
On _tl.’:1e installation of the popular Government, the<\/p>\n
 .,:capncellation was confirmed by order dt. 9.6.2008<\/p>\n
 Annexure~\u00bbAH following which this court dismissed the<\/p>\n
Writ petition as having became infructuous.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
ya.\n<\/p>\n
.12<\/p>\n
12. The 631 respor1dent-Pr}.SecretaryVis.:”said to<\/p>\n
have put up a proposal before the Cabinet;”i1i\ufb01olr1f_ng_item<\/p>\n
Nos.28 and 33 of Schedule–I <\/p>\n
Government [Transaction of Busines1s)..’ ‘Rules_. a1Q77″‘–<\/p>\n
soliciting withdrawal of _VdecVisi_on  of
\nExecutive Committee   o_rder passed
\nunder 98(2) of the  the resolution dt.
\n30.10.2006 of cabinet having
\nhad a  t%y”forder dt. 18.9.2008
\nawarded  the 5″? respondent. Aileging<\/p>\n
that theg\ufb01th Vlresporid-ent was the Commissioner, BMP<\/p>\n
 the lcouncil of the BMP took a decision and
\n‘ was the Pr1.Secretary when the note was put
\n  beforierlthe cabinet and managed a stage show, has<\/p>\n
preferred the petition for the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
“(a) Call for records;\n<\/p>\n
(b) issue a writ order or direction declaring
\nthat the decision of respondent No.2 vide GO
\nNo.UDD 261 MNG 2006 Bangalore Dt<\/p>\n
iii<\/p>\n
.31<\/p>\n
26.09.2008 vide Arinexure\u00bb  to <\/p>\n
petition to award contract for  <\/p>\n
development of housing compt}_e$g..VV.   the<\/p>\n
economically weaker sectionscf s”ociety’-{E-W’S}.~ at;<\/p>\n
Ejipura, Koramangala, tog Rie_sp’onde_nt..l’t No  p  .<\/p>\n
illegal and quash thesanie; it<\/p>\n
(c) issue atwrit  -or  other
\nwrit or order, dir.ell<:t_iAnlg  Nos.2 and 3 to
\nconsider the  16.6.2008 &
\n26.6.2903  Annexure–AL<\/p>\n
"~a_CClQI'tjl3.11Ce with direction of<\/p>\n
  tttiievv\ufb01overnor of Karnataka dated<\/p>\n
2l9.__5';2tOO8._lVide_4A_ni1eXure-AG and issue LoA in<\/p>\n
V. favoiir t_ofw.p'etiiioner and award the contract in<\/p>\n
"  terms of uRFP..i:o petitioner;<\/p>\n
'A Direct for appropriate cases being<\/p>\n
 regist_ci5ed by competent authorities to<\/p>\n
 ..inye.stigate\/ enquire into the entirernatter as to<\/p>\n
illegal tampering of records\/ abuse of powers by<\/p>\n
 the officials and take action against the guilty;<\/p>\n
(e) issue any other writ , order or direction
\nas this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate in<\/p>\n
facts of the case.”\n<\/p>\n
vi<\/p>\n
13. The petition is opposed by \ufb01ling  of<\/p>\n
objection dt. 5.12.2008 of the 5″” <\/p>\n
the ailegations. It is contendec1.\u00a3he1t.’_4’the’isa <\/p>\n
disqualified bidder since    J<\/p>\n
Assistant did not notice ‘the.yppatei1.t.  in the
\npetitioner’s drawings, mpore’appropriate1y* providing car<\/p>\n
parking space of dimensi’ons Iessfthan that prescribed<\/p>\n
in the B:.1.\\’l’?.’:Vs1-.b1.\u00a71.i1d:_i0r’.1..’g’ by..:….rsgj.t2too3 and being a 0<\/p>\n
vioijation”   bye\u00a71aws_– ought to be rejected. It is
\nstatedxgthat  not a participant in the tender<\/p>\n
pr qccgss dalidigdthattdii\/I\/”ts Akruti Nirman Limited being the<\/p>\n
 , A  petition deserves to be rejected.<\/p>\n
 The respondent submits that being one of the<\/p>\n
participants in the tender process did submit RFP<\/p>\n
 ..:>d’o_cument on 20.2.2006 at 3.56 p.m and not till 4.05<\/p>\n
 p.m. as recorded by the Receiving Authority which was<\/p>\n
brought to the notice of the BMP on the Very day by
\nletter dt. 20.2.2006 Annexure~R12.<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
.15.\n<\/p>\n
(b). The QMP offered by the respondent was
\nRs.1,35,00,000\/– and revenue from the additional car<\/p>\n
parking facility when not evaiuated by  <\/p>\n
incorrect recommendation. According to  ‘re:sp_ond”ent <\/p>\n
the total build up area for i <\/p>\n
petitioner is 6,12,-4:13
\nrespondent is 6,53,236__v:’sq,ft..,_p H’ area of the<\/p>\n
commercial bui1din_\u00a7,\u00a7.pthe petitioner is<\/p>\n
11,,9i7i;V64oit’geq.tt\ufb01ef  5u,i9’8,’820\/– sq.ft is BMP’s share
\nandzth–e– ‘\u00bbth’e share of the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
respondeiitv\ufb02   have offered 18,07,374 sq.ft of<\/p>\n
–  _   of which 63,53,687 sq.ft is BMP’s<\/p>\n
  balance is the share of the respondent.<\/p>\n
 (cfitdis stated that the petitioner proposed 1,425\/-<\/p>\n
 _ Vepcarparking space of which 713 is the share of the BMP<\/p>\n
A’  the balance 712 is that of the petitioner. It is the<\/p>\n
case of the respondent that the petitioner having<\/p>\n
provided car parking space each measuring 2.25 mtrs X<\/p>\n
Vi<\/p>\n
-16<\/p>\n
4.50 mtrs though byelaw 16[a) of <\/p>\n
Byelaws, 2003 prescribes dimensions  fejaehad  <\/p>\n
parking as 3.0 rntr X 6.0 Intrs,\u00a57xAAr\u00bba0s’deIibe:rateiyu<\/p>\n
by IDECK.\n<\/p>\n
(d) The respondent  to have   car’<\/p>\n
parking space, of which tits.._the~,sharev’HofVV the BMP,
\ninciusive of 500   car parking<\/p>\n
slots. Accord’ii:;g”Vto i’espo:nd.ent–..:\u00abits proposed 1936<\/p>\n
car  eifdainated by IDECK but was<\/p>\n
done  by the EMF.\n<\/p>\n
5. , (e) Val:\/ia’tion by’.’i\\\/Ianasa’ is said to have resulted<\/p>\n
  aaririving\ufb02 at  present value for short NPV of<\/p>\n
   the petitioner’s offer while that of<\/p>\n
the respeiident as Rs.1o4,14,95,314.39. ‘M\/s Strut<\/p>\n
 ..Gr\u00a2o’ “engaged by the BMP, having evaluated the bid<\/p>\n
ddtdociiment opined that NPV of petitioner’s bid is<\/p>\n
it 0′ ‘”‘Rs.101,05,54,553.99 while that of the respondent is<\/p>\n
Rs. 1 20,25,65,010.07.\n<\/p>\n
Q\/wk<\/p>\n
.1 7.\n<\/p>\n
[i] It is further stated that paragraph’:’__i[;1:\u20ac2.,5<\/p>\n
provides for evaluation of the technical’ as ‘set <\/p>\n
out in AppendiX–V.'{ while    <\/p>\n
declaration that the technical proposal tothe,<\/p>\n
technical speci\ufb01cations    the BMP.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 1. 1.5.7’  ‘interpretation of RFP is<\/p>\n
valid only if it is invwriting   ‘by the Executive
\nEngineer.(i%’ro\u00a7je:cts):’:  the allegations of
\nthe 1.petit’iorie-r “‘at(ort]r;.y of acceptance.<\/p>\n
“r_(g’)_The ‘respondent.__ further states that paragraph<\/p>\n
1.24 otx  impeachable, unfettered right in<\/p>\n
 to erigaas-V and utilise the services of the<\/p>\n
 consultarit_S which when examined by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
  as indicated in the notes at page 13 to 15<\/p>\n
 in the-\ufb01le bearing No.EZC\/F\/1565\/2004, copy of which<\/p>\n
 = .i_sj’A”fumished under RTI ACT, Annexure–R14, the drawing<\/p>\n
 submitting by the petitioner were found to be vioiative of<\/p>\n
the Building byelaws of BMP and deserves to be<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
“<18"\n<\/p>\n
disqualified by applying paragraph 1.29.x3′[a}_V r\/W<\/p>\n
paragraph 5.4 B of the Draft Concession__Ag’re.einent.’=It<\/p>\n
is asserted that the appointment of the<\/p>\n
empanelled with the BMP to ei\u00a3icit:_-thleirpofgthe <\/p>\n
two bids cannot be foundfanlt  V<\/p>\n
(h) Responderit..speci\ufb01caily ‘denies the allegation of
\ninterpolation in the  ‘fioici1mer1t.>.j’Vi.n’jconnivance with<\/p>\n
6th respondient  iotheregof\ufb01ciers  BMP.<\/p>\n
dtveiy14,t_ filed a rejoinder dt. 10.12.2008
\nto thevV’i’*-stavtement”  objections of 5″? respondent<\/p>\n
ri\u00a7i*ter.;%itiI18 th’e”a-V-erments in the memorandum of Writ<\/p>\n
V    in addition contends thus “after completion<\/p>\n
it Vbii’Ev(d3.I’-i5..V:_i’.tssessment only as mandated by RF? terms<\/p>\n
 and Rtile 28(4) and (5) of KTPP Rules, the \ufb01nancial bids<\/p>\n
  opened without any dernour from any quarters.” It<\/p>\n
is clarified that the petitioner earlier known as ‘Aiiruti<\/p>\n
Nirrnan Limited’ had changed its name to ‘Akruti City<\/p>\n
Limited’ on obtaining a fresh Certi\ufb01cate of Incorporation<\/p>\n
\ufb01yuk<\/p>\n
-19.\n<\/p>\n
from the Registrar of companies in Maharashtra. It is<\/p>\n
alleged that the notings dt. 23.2.2006 V.3;\u00e9s.rp200e,<\/p>\n
subsequent to opening of the RFP and  <\/p>\n
manufactured to subvert   of  <\/p>\n
the tender proceedings to,favour—- 531  it  0\n<\/p>\n
15. Respondent  and__4Vhave””0pp0s’ed the<\/p>\n
petition. by filing statenlem-,– of.obj.\u00a2ctio\u00e9ns-.d.t;\u00a7 26.2.2009<\/p>\n
inter alia contendinag’htha,te. blocks, spread<\/p>\n
over 13.’_I’2~2.h-ggredsptpof in Koramangala, Bangalore, in
\na dilapidated required demolition and<\/p>\n
recon..structior1′ of a building complex under a public-<\/p>\n
 partnership [P1319 Model) pursuant to which the<\/p>\n
A  ._  respondent and one IDEB submitted their<\/p>\n
 20.2.2000 and at 4.30 p.m. the bids were<\/p>\n
” soperied in their presence.\n<\/p>\n
(a) The report of IDECK recommending the
\npetitioner as the first preferred bidder when considered<\/p>\n
was found to be lacking in evaluation of material<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
.20.\n<\/p>\n
aspects, more appropriately the car parking <\/p>\n
being in conformity with the Building  <\/p>\n
respondent’s bid containing :1’ev.eixcar ‘slots it.<\/p>\n
was not evaluated, requiring a\u00bbps’econd,–opinion’:. <\/p>\n
Commissioner for  _ agre.en’1ent  the
\nrecommendation  Erlgifieei\u00e9 (Projects)
\napproved the propowsafi   opinion of two
\nindependent   submitted
\na reportidon  integrated evaluation of the
\ntechnical  of petitioner and that of the
\n531 respondent  ‘NPV’ at the end of 30″” year,<\/p>\n
 that “the_.._proposal of 531 respondent was more<\/p>\n
‘  BMP than that of the petitioner. The other<\/p>\n
‘VM\/s Strut Geo’ opined that BMP would<\/p>\n
beneiit. inuch more in the bid offered by the 531<\/p>\n
“ii .Vre”spondent than that of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
(b) According to the BMP the evaluation by<\/p>\n
IDECK was based on the QMF offered by each of the<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
.21.\n<\/p>\n
participants while the evaluation by the <\/p>\n
was based on Net Present Value of <\/p>\n
years, integrating both technical’ ‘and   it<\/p>\n
Parameters adopted,  _4 is 4’icl:ai1ned,:p’,.’i,,”
\nconstruction; revenue  ‘addition-Z  parking
\nfacilities and other i<\/p>\n
(c) The  having placed its<\/p>\n
recommen_dati,on ,l:wiefo\u00bbre’ the ‘Standing Committee for<\/p>\n
 by the Council on
\n considering the supplementary
\n to whether BOOT Module is a<\/p>\n
 _ g  ppoptio\ufb01, …. _, _
\n  to the respondent, petitioner having
\n the resolution of the council by filing Writ
\n * Paetivtion No.l216\/ 2006, the Executive Committee
\n constituted by the Governor, during President’s rule on
\n23.5.2008 decided to cancel the resolution without<\/p>\n
issuing notice to the Administrator of BMP since the<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
22.<\/p>\n
term of the council had expired. It is stated. the<\/p>\n
issue of the Government Order dt.  <\/p>\n
was dismissed as having    it<\/p>\n
[e] It is further stated th’a,tVll’i”s\/I\/s giaped’ia;i~lso\u00a2ia;
\nWelfare Association, thRe’petitioIielr  “the 5″‘
\nrespondent havingrepreselntations to the
\npopular Governrnen.t,..:on  the matter was<\/p>\n
taken up  Section 98(4) of the<\/p>\n
Karnatakaj’,Mui31jl\u00a21pvail..pycorporation Act, 1976 since the
\ndecision’ dt.’  the Executive Committee did<\/p>\n
not” _containl” ‘reasons for cancelling the Council’s<\/p>\n
  therefore, having regard to the fact<\/p>\n
 ._   the circumstances, by Order dt. 9.6.2008<\/p>\n
cancelled; the earlier Govt. Order and approved the<\/p>\n
* :c_ouncil’s resolution.\n<\/p>\n
(i) Respondents specifically deny the allegation of<\/p>\n
 interpolation in the tender document, so also the<\/p>\n
allegation that tender document of 51″ respondent did<\/p>\n
Wk<\/p>\n
.23.\n<\/p>\n
not provide for multi level car parking. Accordirig the<\/p>\n
respondents the car parking is shown <\/p>\n
the proposed commercial building  <\/p>\n
parking facility. V V<\/p>\n
(g) It is lastly statedL”‘~thatllti1e’ ‘Mid of .-in;
\nrespondent records  alias share
\namount, accountedash’capital  annual account for<\/p>\n
the year _  query, the 531<\/p>\n
 nrildertaking that equity shares
\nWould._bepallott\u00a7\u00a7(j.  fninirnurn of Rs.iO lakhs, equal<\/p>\n
to the thresphold ll”.-financial calculation criteria for net<\/p>\n
  \u00ab  a.:s”s.peci\ufb01ed in the ‘RFQ’.<\/p>\n
  f.”i”‘l”i’e petitioner iiied rejoinder statement dt.<\/p>\n
 to the statement of objections of 3rd and 4th<\/p>\n
 it respondents reiterating the averinents in the<\/p>\n
 ‘memorandum of writ petition and contending that the<\/p>\n
T Chief Engineer (Projects) could not have opined that the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s RFP was not in accordance with the<\/p>\n
Lek<\/p>\n
.24<\/p>\n
Building Byelaws after M\/ s IDECK submitted’<\/p>\n
Though the petitioner proposed 1725   <\/p>\n
{DECK reckoned only 1470,    u<\/p>\n
therefore, the petitioner’s  in
\nthe terms therein.   Engineer
\n(Projects) on   he  “iillegitirnate’
\ndesign to help 5th   the tender by
\nhook   toll’lthelpetitioner, the letter
\n  disclosed 750 car
\n 500 car parking slots
\n  1936 multi level car parking<\/p>\n
 The RFP….p’rovides for BMP’s entitlement to be<\/p>\n
V   alone and no stipulation of sharing<\/p>\n
‘revenue car parking and therefore, cannot form a<\/p>\n
validlAl:;asis to award the tender. it is stated that the<\/p>\n
 x _reports of the second consultant have no legal sanctity.<\/p>\n
 The interpolation in the RFP document, it is alleged, is<\/p>\n
because neither the report of IDECK nor the area<\/p>\n
statement of 5″” respondent part of the technical bid,<\/p>\n
5\/\u00b0<L<\/p>\n
25.<\/p>\n
made provision for multi level car parking, solalso the<\/p>\n
sectional view of the plan did not disclose _rnu]_ti. car<\/p>\n
parking, while the technical  <\/p>\n
evidences proposed 1500  <\/p>\n
that the format of
\nprovide for submission of    other form
\nand contrary to assertions tlrgtlrespondent in the
\nletters dt. 33,06  car parking
\nslots,   slots. It is
\n the petitioner raised objections
\nto the of RF? by the 5*” respondent,<\/p>\n
rieveirftlielessi  officials accommodated the 5th<\/p>\n
‘  —in violation of the tender terms and that<\/p>\n
l’   did not waive the objection over<\/p>\n
eligibility\/quali\ufb01cation of 5th respondent. It is lastly<\/p>\n
 ,:c’o’ntended that at the instance of the 51″ respondent,<\/p>\n
 neither the Karnataka Government (Transaction of<\/p>\n
Business] Rules 1977 nor Section 98(4) of the Karnatka<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, for short ‘KMC Act’<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
26.<\/p>\n
enable review of a valid decision by””‘-th.e__} State<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
17. The petition is oppopsednby. filing of  “V<\/p>\n
objections dt. 8.5.2009′
\nKarnataka, denying the   regard to
\nthe imperative  ” to rehabilitate the
\ndisplaced  sections of
\nsociety   jgrlesidential buildings, in
\n   note Annexure–R1 of
\n for Works and BM? Council<\/p>\n
that was not in accordance with the<\/p>\n
 B3fe1aws_.and the opinion of the two consultants<\/p>\n
‘ .respondent’s proposal was more bene\ufb01cial.<\/p>\n
it Were. circiimstances on which orders were passed<\/p>\n
invoking Section 98(4) of the ‘KMC Act’. The decision, it<\/p>\n
  stated, is bonafide and on consideration of all<\/p>\n
 relevant material. It is asserted that the need to review<\/p>\n
the earlier decision of the Executive Committee<\/p>\n
appointed by the Governor during the President’s Rule<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
.27.\n<\/p>\n
followed by the Government Order, was absence of<\/p>\n
reasons since Section 98(2) mandates reasons’ Ito” be<\/p>\n
assigned if the resolution is prejudiciaJ..to4_:thve:~int.erest <\/p>\n
the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
18. Having heard.*th_e lelarnled
\nparties, perused the   the order
\nimpugned, the :’~-fonieldecisiolnll making is.<\/p>\n
“whether the awardiofi ieontraef v.fo’1?,.1*edevelopment of<\/p>\n
  ‘eV6@ple_’x and development of
\ncozntrieprciai   at Eijipura. Koramangala.<\/p>\n
Ba’ngalore”‘t\u00a7”tlhe’V’5*l= respondent can be faulted and<\/p>\n
  on any permissible ground of judicial<\/p>\n
 tilt is trite law that award of contracts by the<\/p>\n
 , ;Stat’e—-,; its instrurnentalities, statutory bodies and other<\/p>\n
it ‘-i,_l”au’lthorities falling within the meaning of State under<\/p>\n
 Article 12 of the Constitution of India is settled by a<\/p>\n
catena of reported opinions, a few of which are:<\/p>\n
N<\/p>\n
” ‘Commissioner,<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
. Ramniklal N.I3hutta ~–v- State <\/p>\n
[(1977) 1 SCC 1346];\n<\/p>\n
Ramana Dayaram Shetity It ; ‘I
\nAirport Authority of India’ ar1d’eiothe:’r’~:- [A1379 <\/p>\n
SC 1628]; K V.   _ V
\nFertilizer Corporation\u00bb  Union
\nof India [[1981]1,SC~Cf\u00a73l604i];  <\/p>\n
Central  se_ _V  S”  India Limited
\n[(19831 SvCiCV:25O4]A ‘  – –\n<\/p>\n
.  Shyiain  State of I-Iaryana<\/p>\n
 –v– Union of India
\nLiiiiessisiisdeizem;\n<\/p>\n
;i_fi’atal”CeEln’lar=–v- Union of India [1994(6) soc<\/p>\n
65ii.]j;f S<\/p>\n
  International Limited –v~ IVR
\nI ..4″C.or’;$truCtions Limited [1999[1] sec 491];
\n Monarch Infrastructure Pvt. Limited –v~<\/p>\n
Ullasnagar Municipa}<\/p>\n
Corporation and others [2000(4) Supreme 34];<\/p>\n
10. Air India Limited –v– Cochin international<\/p>\n
11.<\/p>\n
Airport Limited and others [2000(1) Scale 346];
\nCraig Martin Distillery Pvt. Limited<\/p>\n
Kerala State Beverages [Manufacturing and<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
_V _<\/p>\n
29.<\/p>\n
Marketing) Corporation Limited [geoog(i”kf)_i <\/p>\n
623];\n<\/p>\n
12. Reliance Energy Limited a “‘–..v;’ ; <\/p>\n
Maharashtra State’   \u00bb . _ “~]’j’eveI:oprii.e:nt<\/p>\n
Corporation LiIr1it_ed   [(_S?.0.0?i8.<\/p>\n
SCC 1].\n<\/p>\n
20. The obsei”vatior.is   Cotirt in the said<\/p>\n
decisions could be  t’.hi,is’~ii_i. <\/p>\n
 a}.a’2’L1’d.V::Of \u20acoontrdact”‘wfiether by a private
\npartyior pubiicdfjbodyi:or*.i;he State is essentially
\na\ufb01  traiisaction. In arriving at a<\/p>\n
cornrnerciaiwg “decisig5n. considerations which are<\/p>\n
parainouiit Varei~-._cori1rr1erciai considerations. The<\/p>\n
\u00bb\u00bb’-{State can”‘chVoos.e its own method to arrive at a<\/p>\n
A  deciesion-iy It can fix its own terms of invitation to<\/p>\n
   that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It<\/p>\n
‘A  into negotiations before \ufb01naliy deciding<\/p>\n
ioaaccept any one of the offers made to it. Price<\/p>\n
i ” ._need not always be the sole criterion for awarding<\/p>\n
it ” “a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation for<\/p>\n
bonafide reasons, if the tender conditions permit
\nsuch a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even
\nthough it happens to be lowest or highest.<\/p>\n
However, the State and its Corporations etc., are<\/p>\n
30.<\/p>\n
bound to adhere to the norms, standar.ds.:_:’and<\/p>\n
procedure laid down by them and <\/p>\n
from them arbitrarily. Though the decisiojri.:ta’1<erii_A   <\/p>\n
by them is not amenable:~to–.\u00a7t1d'icia1'"irew.rievf1~oiti.A<\/p>\n
merit, the Court can examine 1d"ie'iVdecision <\/p>\n
process and interfere'  it  'found"v'hVVit:iated: <\/p>\n
rnalafides, unreasonabieriess, arbitrariness and
\ndue to Violation,' of ,the- titerrris  conditions<\/p>\n
imposed by the    _<\/p>\n
21. :..Iri.e:VRau1\u00a7iaq\u20ac  case (supra), the<\/p>\n
Apex”   .t}ius:”.W V  it<\/p>\n
, \ufb01g, _:a’Wa.rd of a contract, whether it is by a<\/p>\n
pvrivate  or…’~~by a pubiic body or the State, is<\/p>\n
it iessentiaily a commercial transaction. In arriving at a<\/p>\n
E5″cor”n.r,I&1ercia1 decision, considerations which are of<\/p>\n
V  _ “‘–v.para:noiint importance are commercial considerations.<\/p>\n
V ‘I’h;cse;\\ivou1d be :\n<\/p>\n
(1) the price at which the other side is Willing
\nto do the work:\n<\/p>\n
(2) whether the goods or services offered are
\nof the requisite speci\ufb01cations:<\/p>\n
(3) whether the person tendering has the
\nability to deliver the goods or services as<\/p>\n
per speci\ufb01cations. When Iarge Works<\/p>\n
54:\n<\/p>\n
(4)<\/span><\/p>\n
3!.\n<\/p>\n
contracts involving er\u00e9Vgagenj’1ent”.  _.’ of<\/p>\n
substantial manpower or  s;b>eCi.\ufb01c’\u00b0
\nskills are to be Soifered,’-the fin\u00e9..ncialA’abi1ity7_ S<\/p>\n
of the tendereijtoinfiuiiil  of S<\/p>\n
the job is also irnpV_ortant;.’:”‘   _
\nthe abi1ity”e’o:f’ithe teridererv-itoadeliver goods
\nor;_…563\/lrices  ‘to_ do it the ‘work of the
\nrequiilsite-_standaifd” quality; l<\/p>\n
pastV_v:’eXpe_rienc’e~vv ofvfgthe tenderer and<\/p>\n
 whether’ heddhjasVgsiiiccessfully completed<\/p>\n
 ..  sin:1:il.a;r-lwork’–eariier;<\/p>\n
 will be taken to deliver the<\/p>\n
–  it or services; and often
\n‘ { of the tenderer to take fo1Eow–up
\n :\u00a7c::\u00a7i_;.,’ rectify defects or to give post-
\n: contract services.\n<\/p>\n
Everrwhen the State or a public body enters into a
\nA  transaction, considerations which would<\/p>\n
 in its decision to award the contract to a given
\n..   would be the same. However, because the State<\/p>\n
Visor a public body or an agency of the State enters into<\/p>\n
such a contract, there could be, in a given case, an<\/p>\n
element of public law or public interest involved even<\/p>\n
in such a commercial transaction.<\/p>\n
]_;<L<\/p>\n
.32.\n<\/p>\n
10. What are these elements of public
\ninterest? (1) Public money would be expendedvfor the<\/p>\n
purposes of the contract. [2] The <\/p>\n
which are being commissioned cou.ldV_  a pu’b.l.ic’\u00b0–.,<\/p>\n
purpose, such as, constrluctionp of r’oac1.s;”V<'pu'blic7. L<\/p>\n
buildings, power plants or
\nThe public would be d_irectly._interested_:
\nfulfilment of the contraet\u00bbso that.th'e–hVser'v:ices become
\navailable to the public"  (4): The public
\nwould also be "irttere'sted' "'th:e:qt1aIity of the work or
\ngoods can lead-tremendous"fxptiblic hardship and<\/p>\n
substantial financial  lpfeither in correcting<\/p>\n
 mistakes  in'"r,ectifyi.ng defects or even at times in<\/p>\n
 redoing — thus involving larger outlays<\/p>\n
ot,ppi_ib1ie_  and delaying the availability of<\/p>\n
 ppservic-es,""facilities or goods, e.g., a delay in<\/p>\n
 .comn1issiohing a power project, as in the present case,<\/p>\n
 lead to power shortages, retardation of industrial<\/p>\n
1  develeprnent, hardship to the general public and<\/p>\n
_.~s11_b'stantial cost escalation.<\/p>\n
"11. VVhen a writ petition is filed in the High Court<\/p>\n
challenging the award of a contract by a public
\nauthority or the State, the court must be satisfied that
\nthere is some element of public interest involved in
\nentertaining such a petition. If, for example, the<\/p>\n
dispute is purely between two tenderers, the court<\/p>\n
bk<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
must be very careful to see if there is a;e._y..Velen:ent of<\/p>\n
public interest involved in the 1itigation;VV’.._’_P;’ _.__mere<\/p>\n
difference in the prices offered by t1*J;e__”t\\ve,teI1derers._<\/p>\n
may or may not be decisive in  ”<\/p>\n
public interest is involved iniiintervening “in,_p_sL:ci’i a<\/p>\n
commercial transaction. It is. important “to’jbe’ar”in
\nmind that by courtvinte’r.ventio1’i….the _”pro~p’o’s’ed’ project
\nmay be considerably pd\u00a7V1_ayed_p_Vthus “esVca1a_tfing the cost
\nfar more  sa.vi”ng__i.which the court would
\nultimately effect as  by deciding the
\ndispute:in.__ favourVof:Von_e ‘tiendei’er.V’ the other tenderer.<\/p>\n
There_forjei,’t’ iunlessiathe  ilswslatisfied that there is a<\/p>\n
   public interest, or the<\/p>\n
 tr’ansacti~of1i.is\u00bb  into mala fide, the court should<\/p>\n
I’1–o4tlinteV1’v_ei1eunder Article 226 in disputes between<\/p>\n
‘ ~ _ two V Ii-val ‘ tenderers . ”\n<\/p>\n
it  \u00bb.:1i:j; Jagadish Manlal –v– State of Orissa<\/p>\n
it SOC 517 Raveendran J., having considered<\/p>\n
 A ail “inrportant earlier pronouncements of the Apex Court<\/p>\n
”  have a bearing on the decision making recorded<\/p>\n
 the summary of \ufb01ndings thus:\n<\/p>\n
“22. Judicial review of administrative action<\/p>\n
is intended to prevent arbitrariness,<\/p>\n
Lift<\/p>\n
34.<\/p>\n
irrationaiity, unreasonableness, bias” <\/p>\n
maiafides. Its purpose is to <\/p>\n
choice or decision’ “-is  made V ‘<\/p>\n
‘V55 V<\/p>\n
lawfully” and not to cheek <\/p>\n
decision is “sound’V’.’\u00ab-.._V When the; power of<\/p>\n
judicial review is  in matters’ “relating to
\ntenders or   certairfspeciai
\nfeatures should’    A contract
\nis a cornmerciaj  Evaluating
\ntenders   ,_?:eritrac’ts are essentially<\/p>\n
co1i3.n1e_r(.:ia1 ‘furicti.ons.~~’ Principles of equity and<\/p>\n
fnatur’a,l j’ufstic’e~,VVstay a distance. If the<\/p>\n
7-de’cision”reiuatingto award of contract is bona<\/p>\n
\ufb01dea and is in  interest, courts wiil not, in<\/p>\n
 exercise of power of judicial review, interfere<\/p>\n
i.,eve’n if avprocedural aberration or error in<\/p>\n
  _ “assessment or._._prejudice to a tenderer, is made<\/p>\n
Vo’ui’;[.:–.  power of judicial review will not be<\/p>\n
vperinitted to be invoked to protect private<\/p>\n
it -interest at the cost of pubiic interest, or to<\/p>\n
decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or
\ncontractor with a grievance can always seek
\ndamages in a civii court. Attempts by<\/p>\n
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary<\/p>\n
Lil<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
(ii)<\/p>\n
[iii]<\/p>\n
37.
\nReview of the Order of the Governor of
\nKarnataka is impermissible sin.ce_l’_resulted<\/p>\n
in a civil action being decided;”-f_” .  2 “‘  <\/p>\n
The State in order, to._revieiylvtl1Vedecision ‘of. <\/p>\n
the Governor during Rule__Ao:;_glht <\/p>\n
to have sought 1le’a_y’e of
\nW.P.No. 162 16\/”2006
\n9.06.2005 as..i-‘infrnct-uousl”in. View of the<\/p>\n
order  of’ 2 Government;\n<\/p>\n
 H “of on<\/p>\n
A.l.terI1ati.ve.ly=it  eponten’d.ed” that since the Iis<\/p>\n
b\u20ac%.t.\\.?9Jeen–_ ‘was concluded by the<\/p>\n
 thelvl\ufb01lovernor, the parties were
\n‘  opportunity of hearing at the<\/p>\n
” vtinie of reyiew.\n<\/p>\n
.._vThe \ufb01rst contention of the learned Sr.counse1
\n   that the time fixed for submission of
\n 4 pm. on 20.2.2006, the 531 respondent<\/p>\n
2′ ” Ihaavirig submitted the RFP at 4.05 pm. as animated in<\/p>\n
 ll’Annexure–L deserved rejection. It is no doubt true that
\nAI1nexure–L discloses recording the the time as 4.05 of<\/p>\n
submission of RFP by the 5″] respondent. However this<\/p>\n
UK<\/p>\n
38.<\/p>\n
is clarified by the 5*” respondent in its letter of  date<\/p>\n
acknowledged on the very same date <\/p>\n
its statement of objections that the  worn <\/p>\n
its representative who submitted:-the:  <\/p>\n
as 3.56 pm. A perusal oil
\nfor receipt of RFPS does  of the
\npetitioner or the  at the time of
\nsubmission   or when all
\nthe   pm on the same day.\n<\/p>\n
 rejoinder statement dt.\n<\/p>\n
10i12.l2008’v  ‘statement of objections of the 5″‘<\/p>\n
relspocnd.ent. stat-es”that after completion of the technical<\/p>\n
V   financial bids were opened “Without<\/p>\n
  from any quarters” lending support to the<\/p>\n
fact that there was no challenge to the submission of<\/p>\n
it v  by 5th respondent since it was Well before 4 pm.<\/p>\n
 Considering the clari\ufb01cation put–forth by the 591<\/p>\n
respondent in its letter, it is probable that the wrist<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
.40 ‘
\nstatement, after the letters dt. 3.3.2006 and:’2_Qa_..4;~2006<\/p>\n
claiming multi levei car parking slots.  <\/p>\n
not being in the required ..format,.’dMi’ti”t’ edontendedde. <\/p>\n
deserves rejection under  ”\n<\/p>\n
document.\n<\/p>\n
26. The said eieuse  <\/p>\n
” 1. 1 —  Sigr1’~di’1_ji-g Vof’:jProposal:<\/p>\n
 ‘-vt’o’t\ufb01’dw..piiovide all the information
\n aepegf  the speci\ufb01ed format. BMP
\n  to reject any proposal that is not<\/p>\n
‘  .,:i1;…_the Aspeveified format.
\n  The Proposal should be submitted in two<\/p>\n
 parts.\n<\/p>\n
” Part I Submission:\n<\/p>\n
XXXXXXX<\/p>\n
Part II Submission:\n<\/p>\n
.4].\n<\/p>\n
(a) This should contain only the<\/p>\n
Proposal in terms of the amount (in Rupees) to<\/p>\n
be paid by the bidder to <\/p>\n
the Appointed Date [hereinafter r;\u00e9ferred~_to as :’;Q_nart.er1y <\/p>\n
Management Payment” 0  “‘ V\n<\/p>\n
(b) The Financial l?roposal._,_shonld._be.iias per the<\/p>\n
formats set out in    <\/p>\n
… V.  \u20acX5tmination.._ ‘oi”‘”-Appendix-7 discloses<\/p>\n
 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
*.,”;f1’cOf1f1E*.  level car parking to BMP’s
\nt . .. shaft? lnayh.’-be”‘con.sidered as an extra income.
\n0’  …..  ‘ sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
20.2.2006″\n<\/p>\n
 The aforestated instructions being the bidding<\/p>\n
 pp gprocedure, contained in the RFP, indicates that QMF<\/p>\n
  to be expressed in terms of the amount in<\/p>\n
 Rupees, in the format set out in Appendix 7. The<\/p>\n
instructions do not state that RFP is liable to be<\/p>\n
rejected if information is furnished in addition to what<\/p>\n
Erik<\/p>\n
A3.\n<\/p>\n
to presume the insertion in the RFP and freshgset of<\/p>\n
plans. The allegation that the 5th  win<\/p>\n
connivance with respondents 6 to 8  <\/p>\n
RFP document, it is arguedkmusetfivbeappresuinedw3ii1ce*–<\/p>\n
the report of IDECK .did__ noti._sta.te  about
\nrevenue from 1nulti~leve1  \u00abiacilitiies. In the
\nother words the petitioner  an inference of<\/p>\n
connivance. alt is else*.vhei:e._said..’that essentials may be<\/p>\n
inferred.,:’v,rheii;:.; –.fr’o:n1–.’ thevvwwv-facts proved justify the
\ninference.’  surmise, conjecture or guess,
\non the otherph-and, draw an inference from proved facts<\/p>\n
long as it lis’a-legitimate inference. The contention of<\/p>\n
V  the “petitioner must necessarily fail.<\/p>\n
  In order to appreciate the contentions of the<\/p>\n
it ” parties it is necessary to extract clause 1.32 of the RFP<\/p>\n
 ‘relating to “Salient Features of the Project”, which runs<\/p>\n
‘ thus:\n<\/p>\n
Wk<\/p>\n
.44.\n<\/p>\n
“1.32.Sa1ient Features of the Project:<\/p>\n
(a)<\/p>\n
(b)<\/p>\n
(C)<\/p>\n
{H<\/p>\n
,,… .]\u00a7.I1d for<\/p>\n
BMP shall handover the Site on  is<\/p>\n
within 30 days from  _ of the'”V._<\/p>\n
Concession Agreem:e’nt.”w p_
\nThe concessione_1’re sheill  engineer,
\nconstruct and naeixage 1v64_O”‘fIats:;in the EWS<\/p>\n
Facility at no cost<\/p>\n
The Concessiona;ire’\u00b05sh\u00e9ill” construct and<\/p>\n
n1a3,intai\u00a31 the ..V_’__l_f’Tj2ici1ity as per the<\/p>\n
..Vev5.specf’ificgitio:r1s set” out in< the Concession<\/p>\n
' Agf\u20ac\u20acrh\u20ac\ufb01te\u00abs. t .\\<\/p>\n
'Fhe"Concessionaire is free to use the remaining<\/p>\n
development of a<\/p>\n
V .:'co'mmercia1 \/ residential complex.<\/p>\n
The commercial\/residential complex shall be<\/p>\n
developed at no cost to BMP.\n<\/p>\n
BMP and the Concessionaire shall each own<\/p>\n
50% of the commercial\/ residential complex.<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
(31<\/p>\n
(I’ll<\/p>\n
 –\n<\/p>\n
‘V ._Vand7managernent of BMP’s share of commercial<\/p>\n
 lk}<\/p>\n
“45.\n<\/p>\n
Transfer of title of Concessionaire’s share of the
\ncommercial \/ residential complex s}1all.fbe’l’n1ade<\/p>\n
upon completion and handov_err’of <\/p>\n
Facility and commercial \/ to”,<\/p>\n
BMP.\n<\/p>\n
BMP’s share .*of___ the 2 conimerzzilalg \/,  residential<\/p>\n
complex shal’lV”g:l3e handed  0li’\u00a73r to the<\/p>\n
Concess-ionaire for. rjn-aria,gement;  V “V<\/p>\n
Concessiponvaire  right to sub —<\/p>\n
 license  sub.-.5rent”the_con1mercial \/ residential<\/p>\n
” is .. fv7.co1n”‘pVleX.”;_”\n<\/p>\n
  of the maintenance of EWS Facility<\/p>\n
‘-14<\/p>\n
\/x”re’s1uential complex shall be for a duration<\/p>\n
T”‘v1)_eginning their individual CODs and ending the
\nijekpiry of 30 years from the date of signing of the<\/p>\n
‘T Concession Agreement.\n<\/p>\n
Concessionaire shall handover the EWS Facility
\nand BMP’s share of commercial \/ residential
\ncomplex at no cost and good operating condition<\/p>\n
at the end of the Concession period. 1<\/p>\n
.46.\n<\/p>\n
{1} Concessionaire shall pay Quarterly’<\/p>\n
Payment to BMP, which shall increasein  <\/p>\n
for every block of 3 yearsf’ <\/p>\n
29. Having regard’  the V   proj
\nand its salient featuresip__stipra;.._vprnoreiappropriately in
\nmatters of civil  -53. no obligation on
\nthe P3113  the \u00ab::…V’pr’opose a scheme
\ndetailing”  it-lplemiisbene\ufb01ts under each
\n on its comprehensive
\n  to conclude which of the
\nproposal in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
 contention that the reports of ‘Manasa’<\/p>\n
 ._  are not authorised by a competent<\/p>\n
a”L1tliori’ty:’ is without merit. Clause 1.24 of the RFP<\/p>\n
V ” Vidocuirnents reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
” 1.24 Consultant(s) or advisor(s}:– To assist in
\nthe examination, valuation and comparison of
\nproposals, BMP may utilise the services of<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
consu1tant(s) or advisor(s}.”<\/p>\n
,;\u00a7’?—\n<\/p>\n
The notes at S1.N0s.38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Annexure—_R15
\nread thus:\n<\/p>\n
38. aar\u00e9\ufb01mowag sag as:-bacsadd csaog\ufb01 ma; e.–.7;’.f:\u00a7s”a.*\u00bb’ “-af\ufb02c\ufb01gg\ufb01a\ufb01<\/p>\n
a\u00e9\ufb01eag\ufb01oiadg M\/s. IDECK sqzag, zbz\u00e9aamdd ways ‘\u00a33335
\nadd $386383 aa’\u00a9ma’>3-ESQ mgem\ufb01 (Broadly) aaaeazagg.;3:::VA.lje\u00a7,a.a$’d
\nmega sgngnaacmem 330*’-‘a>aa’9rr\u00a7 2.25m gz “4′.5m. T_;~>ge;:7z>d:35′.
\nassaososa Bye–law 33em:$\u00a3o33.=3;x gmgamq
\nsadea vadooc\ufb01 c:3.ea:sSo3a  c:3.r;:.~_;:.ai\ufb01 -\ufb01e’.-&’&f’3ug’.%’\u00a7@\ufb01 _;e3z’ba3 *.<\/p>\n
a-tioma\ufb01aaiaigt swam:-gm aas\ufb01aamag.’  ‘ll\/larvaric
\nHoldings daid  I3ye–law  \u00e9\ufb01;’9Eu:$332_>=6.<\/p>\n
mad amgamq multi ‘Mel car \u00a7.palri’1<Vj:1g"'~.(MLCP) aazaamzzsocsa
\nmasziwa\ufb01zzg, was; Bye–law \u00a7-S\ufb01ad :.e..&;:sea+s;'\u00e9:@r:3f;.,loos was aezarid
\neaom aasam\u00e9\ufb01. a;:_:am.__ caw\u00a2:5a”‘m\u00e9;a_:’a\u00e93a;aa:-sq.  wring} mega
\nuz:axo3_;3.\n<\/p>\n
39. mos: m%\u00a2nao;;a’  “\u00ab’:$l2_:::oi@e.a’,\u00a7\ufb01 am #dd9o5ae”g,, emesedaas
\nzadam\ufb02wd   Holdings \ufb01e??? (Technical<\/p>\n
& Financial.’Bid)’adaa\u00e9’e;_e\u00ab.V$wegm::g; am aaamcsaacs aaosauaaaoasa
\na~a2.3a>_a,cd: a\u20ac>c:s*”e;._\ufb01:3;,v ‘ ” — <\/p>\n
.1-(\u00a30. aam\u00e9aaggs, _  . Said<\/p>\n
l’\u20ac:3\u00e9T’.>$ \u00e9sa\ufb01gaajgql ” .V'(‘a.=’;aE’axi3) a.a.ozc_<\/p>\n
me: (oisae)<\/p>\n
l ‘   of \ufb01nalising the bids, the existing empanelled<\/p>\n
V .c0nsL1l’tan’\u00a3s ofBMP namely M\/s. Manasa Consultants and M\/S.<\/p>\n
 .  Geostructv Bangalore, their sczwzccs. may he enlisted.<\/p>\n
 V l” Approved<\/p>\n
VI
\n4\/3<\/span><\/p>\n
Sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
4\/3<\/span><\/p>\n
1:4<\/p>\n
31. Thus what can be gathered from the notes<\/p>\n
supra is, that the petitioner proposed 17<\/p>\n
slots each measuring 2.25 mtrs X <\/p>\n
3.0 rntrs X 6.0 rntrs,   <\/p>\n
Byelaw) 2003 a violation,  reg#u.ir.enien’i:,.”beir1g
\na serious technical \ufb02aw   bearing on
\nthe salient featu’r:esfi–  as vvell as cost
\nimplications A in terrnS,:’of and asset value.<\/p>\n
The’,.51h_lirefsploiulentlp’proposed; 1950 car parking slots,
\nbyelaw’  levels, entailing in additional
\nbene\ufb01tswin ‘terms’oi revenue to the EM? and increase in<\/p>\n
._Sii’\u20ac3,._g$ll’i.d assetv–va”ue, more appropriately in view of the<\/p>\n
0 ~00i’PP’\ufb01oriEule*-‘entitling BMP to only 50% of the built area<\/p>\n
  “year parking space. M\/ s IDECK , the Advisor<\/p>\n
Assitstant for the project having failed to examine,<\/p>\n
 ‘._gevgaluate the proposals of the petitioner and the 5″‘<\/p>\n
 respondent, in the manner required of it, the<\/p>\n
Commissioner for BMP approved the proposal to have<\/p>\n
the RFP i.e. Technical and Financial offers, of both the<\/p>\n
),w(<\/p>\n
.49
\npetitioner and 5″‘ respondent evaluated”\u00abl:’l:s}f;V”two<\/p>\n
independent consultants viz., Manasa  :’C~eo.’<\/p>\n
In the light of clause L24 extmcted   be; <\/p>\n
said that the BMP was
\nfrom the two consultantsejlgiing eVa1u.ating’v_;’proposals’.
\nThe further contention thatt.r.eports”‘were obtained
\nby the 5th respondent if  the BMP
\nthough not   conntenanced.\n<\/p>\n
H   for the petitioner opposes
\nthe assgertions respondent and the BMP that<\/p>\n
the plans discloselmnlti level car parking facility, on the<\/p>\n
 “that the evaluation by M\/ s IDECK did not<\/p>\n
  hence a presumption that plans were<\/p>\n
‘i’c”I3l23\u00a7:’3.\u00aeti””V’and furnished to ‘Manasa’ and ‘Strud Geo’. At<\/p>\n
 ” Vet.heV”thresho1d, in the absence of proved facts the<\/p>\n
 drawing of an inference would be on surrnise,<\/p>\n
conjuncture and.guesswork. There is force in the<\/p>\n
submission of the learned Sizcounsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
.50.\n<\/p>\n
who points out to the sectional drawings submitted by<\/p>\n
the 531 respondent as evaluated by ‘Manasae<\/p>\n
Geo’ disclosing 38,034 sq.rntrs (3o,756yi4-,.,,,72d6S) <\/p>\n
basement \ufb02oor and 24,680  in  <\/p>\n
from 1 to 9th \ufb02oors for car’  in
\nthe Building byelaws. In   parking
\nslots in the    while
\nStrut Geo and Manasa 60 parking
\nslots in    480 slots and 36
\nnurnbelrs  put together total to 1,952<\/p>\n
(1436  16).’: ~v__Th,e ‘report of IDECK reckoned that the<\/p>\n
p_etit>i_loraer’s hxproposal if changed according to the<\/p>\n
V  for parking slots as set out in the byelaws<\/p>\n
evaluated as 1425 car parking slots in the<\/p>\n
 baserrient \ufb02oor, only, measuring 37210 sq.mtrs (28,060<\/p>\n
 u _f|_-0,150). Thus IDECK having not evaluated this aspect<\/p>\n
 of the technical proposal of the respondent necessitated<\/p>\n
the BMP to secure the evaluation of the Technical and<\/p>\n
\ufb01nancial bids of the parties, by two ingependent<\/p>\n
UK<\/p>\n
.5E.\n<\/p>\n
consultants. In my opinion, the assertioiis’V”th.at~i.. the<\/p>\n
plans submitted by the 5th respondent were,  <\/p>\n
unacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
33. The petitioner Vhai2ing:__i,\u00ab’ofifeiied
\nas QMP against the   the Si”\n<\/p>\n
respondent it is  ‘ought to be
\ndeclared as successfui  counsel points
\nout to reieira7ifit:.:;:~ro\u20acrision;s  ‘R.-5P documents which<\/p>\n
read thiis: ii.\n<\/p>\n
     Evaluation: Part II
\nSu’I.:i14;t41ii=VsiV\u00e9’i;1”4’i.: \u00bb* _. 4
\n‘1;2a’;1 Part 11 Submission of all the Bidders<\/p>\n
 Whopass eitaluation of Part I submission would<\/p>\n
  _ bsievaiiisisd.\n<\/p>\n
A  The Part I Submission and Part II
\nS.ubinission would be evaiuated on the basis of<\/p>\n
“tinge evaluation criteria set out in Section 2. The<\/p>\n
H Bidder submitting the highest Financial Proposal.<\/p>\n
as per terms and conditions set out in Section 2,
\nshall be declared as the Preferred Bidder.<\/p>\n
jyi<\/p>\n
52<\/span><\/p>\n
2. Evaluation Methodology:\n<\/p>\n
2.2. Evaluation Parameter:\n<\/p>\n
2.2.} Part II SL1bITliSSiOIT-.” (Fir1ar1cial~i’Prop_o.sal)h of
\nall bidders who pass. th[ee’voIu.ti’on of Q3artvi–I
\nSubmission, would be ”evaluated’ on} thee
\nbasis of ‘9 the p’ropose’d, “‘V..Q’ua1*ter1y”‘
\nManagement P3Yi\ufb01_ei7t.   ‘  <\/p>\n
2 . 2 Seiectiorla_ V  ” A . p<\/p>\n
2.2.1 The FinancialPropo’sa}s..’would be ranked<\/p>\n
 descending order’  the Quarterly<\/p>\n
 I\ufb01fianagemient Payr”1″ie11t;” with the Bidder<\/p>\n
  “~th’e_  highest Quarterly<\/p>\n
 ‘ii._l’g’_{Vanage1rient”Payment being ranked first<\/p>\n
 “””   the. Bidder” quoting the second<\/p>\n
‘ ” ‘5I_\u00bbhigh.es’t,_Quarterly Management Payment
\n_ p ‘ _rar1k.ed4as.p’second and so on.<\/p>\n
2.2.2 T..he’~ABid’derVranked first in accordance<\/p>\n
 *with 7,the” above procedure would be<\/p>\n
 declared as the Preferred Bidder.”<\/p>\n
.  The aforesaid evaluation methodology,<\/p>\n
 ._  understood in the light of the framework
\n salient features of the project, supra, based<\/p>\n
“V ‘A on vvhich the project was conceived. It is not in dispute
\nthat EDECK, developed a durable PPP framework and
\nV policy, based on past experience of BMP in projects<\/p>\n
such as ‘Garuda Mall’, ‘Maharaja complex’, “Divyashree<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
51<\/span><\/p>\n
property’, Madiwala and Siddaiah Road, by  the<\/p>\n
following rnethodoiogz (a) Evaluation of <\/p>\n
options to understand the risk\u00e9of   _ <\/p>\n
return being revenue accretions   (bl
\nevaluation of speci\ufb01c  of:__
\nrelating to achievernent..r”oi;..”g_objectives “of  project;
\noverall bene\ufb01t toad  to agreement
\nobligations   management<\/p>\n
and  “objectives of BMP was to<\/p>\n
unlock ‘corriiriercial’l’va1ue “of a portion of the property,<\/p>\n
reduce’ eveliicuiar’i:ongestion with retained risk of market<\/p>\n
 or ‘vo1.un1e risk for its share while capital<\/p>\n
 excluding land being nil and partial<\/p>\n
7 gcommercial risk, the \ufb01nancial accruals, cash in\ufb02ow,<\/p>\n
returns in terms of rupees per square foot, per month,<\/p>\n
 , igiand BMP’s share in potential upside over the asset life.<\/p>\n
In terms of the project BMP would relinquish ownership<\/p>\n
of the Iand in lieu of 50% of built area, to be maintained<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
by the builder for a period of 30 years.<\/p>\n
.54.\n<\/p>\n
35. The 5131 respondent offered\u00e9i of<\/p>\n
Rs. }..35,00,000\/~, in additionto .inco1ne’viro.fndnujiti ‘leifel. <\/p>\n
car parking which M\/s   J<\/p>\n
accordance with the  saiijentfeaturesd’of
\nthe policy, since esche*.*v\u00a7z.’e\\d”‘froIIi’ co’nsideration the
\nadditional income respondent and
\nas the   Rs.1,50,50,500\/..\n<\/p>\n
recomIr1en:ded’t first preferred bidder.
\n  t_h.eVs’edcond. It is a matter of fact
\n to the notice of the BMP<\/p>\n
by \u00bb the uddlettelt’  3.3.2006 of the 5th respondent,<\/p>\n
 .V’.r1ecessitated an integrated evaluation of the financia}<\/p>\n
it  bid in the RFP of both the petitioner and<\/p>\n
the V53′ -respondent by the two independent consultants.<\/p>\n
 at .’I4’heV””car parking slots numbering 1425 evaiuated by<\/p>\n
“1D’ECK in the RFP of the petitioner though the<\/p>\n
T petitioner proposed 1724 car parking slots, in contrast<\/p>\n
with 1952 car parking siots proposed by the 5″”<\/p>\n
124<\/span><\/p>\n
56.<\/p>\n
among them was beneficial, in the interest_’of,’:p,i;folic,<\/p>\n
since ownership right over 50% of   <\/p>\n
property in question being  he<\/p>\n
relinquished, in lieu of_5Q\u00b0\/o ofplbuilt  Q’ <\/p>\n
circumstances, the contentiori of pvetitioner that
\nbeing the highest ‘  pa  jacket
\nformula, is entitled  jsticcessful bidder,
\nis     <\/p>\n
   the \ufb01nancial gain,
\nrequired’ “l on a common platform
\nintegratjlgllug both’ and \ufb01nancial proposals of the<\/p>\n
petitioner  thegf\ufb01h respondent. The two consultants<\/p>\n
‘ ,:.V’Manasaf’\u00ab,,,a_”ud ‘Strut Geo’, worked out the net present<\/p>\n
“trained A  of Bl\\\/1P”s share based on the following<\/p>\n
criteria: V\n<\/p>\n
(a) construction cost;\n<\/p>\n
(b) annual escalation cost;\n<\/p>\n
(c) revenue from additional car parking facility;<\/p>\n
((1) Net Present Value at the end of 30 years, to<\/p>\n
arrive at the following:\n<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
xmnx<\/p>\n
Ezmxcwm I H<\/p>\n
 . . _. _  om >wm>m[m.\u20acm \u00a9d>5,_w.mm wm<mcow\u00a7m2.m<\/p>\n
mw.\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
UmmQm…m..\ufb01o.5. .9.\n<\/p>\n
wmwmgmrww<\/p>\n
 . .___\u00a7_.\\._wL  25.595 w\ufb01. Cd.\n<\/p>\n
gxm. NSm<m.\ufb02oW Iomnmbmm<\/p>\n
 Emma <\/p>\n
_._2,__w:mmm ..I..\n<\/p>\n
E\\ m. made\u00bb
\nOmega?\n<\/p>\n
Exm.\n<\/p>\n
SWOW<\/p>\n
3 \\m.\n<\/p>\n
Emdmmm<\/p>\n
Exm. ma\ufb01a
\nOmommow<\/p>\n
?dm 9. m\u00e9m
\nQcm\ufb01mwm
\nOo\ufb02ms\ufb01ono\ufb02<\/p>\n
 mm\u00bb .\n<\/p>\n
__ %m_mHm.wmo.,….nWT.\n<\/p>\n
..m..5.Em mm<\/p>\n
mwwooo mm\u00bb<\/p>\n
\ufb01bmmw mwn<\/p>\n
mmwmmm mm\u00bb<\/p>\n
mam m\ufb01mcd om m\u00e9m.\n<\/p>\n
\u00aecB.mQ.m<\/p>\n
muqooo mm ..\n<\/p>\n
. mo_mmw_.c mm<\/p>\n
 .  5, mm:\n<\/p>\n
mm #000 mm”\n<\/p>\n
gamma mm.\n<\/p>\n
mmuwmm M?\n<\/p>\n
Ooanbgmwowmw mnmm
\nmd\ufb02chrmm EH03<\/p>\n
um mooo m\ufb02w.\n<\/p>\n
_  . . _.:m\u00a7& mm<\/p>\n
 wmoooo mm.\n<\/p>\n
mwwm H m mwn<\/p>\n
Emma\u00bb H mwn<\/p>\n
wzm. wwmwm 9.\n<\/p>\n
oommHDmH.Q.,m: acmlmam<\/p>\n
wmumoo wag<\/p>\n
._ mm\ufb01om mm.\n<\/p>\n
 .,mmma._oo mm<\/p>\n
Om\ufb02uma\ufb01sm mwmm<\/p>\n
Gamma mm”\n<\/p>\n
Gamma m\ufb02 <\/p>\n
3 a\u00a7_\u00ae m__m<\/p>\n
. _u..mwE,w mm.\n<\/p>\n
\ufb01mmom mm<\/p>\n
mi\ufb01 H mm<\/p>\n
mmw Sm mm”\n<\/p>\n
waw mwmwm om 93.55%<\/p>\n
qwmwm mm\u00bb<\/p>\n
Emmm mm”\n<\/p>\n
qmmmwwm<\/p>\n
 Kama\u00bb mm<\/p>\n
buumowca <m_:m om
\nnmmlbnaw
\nBmdmmmmmmbn mmmm<\/p>\n
mwwm\ufb02mg
\nawowmw<\/p>\n
  mm.mmm.E
\n.  owoH.mw…. ..\n<\/p>\n
Z3 Huwnmma <mLSm<\/p>\n
wm.mm.mo<\/p>\n
Owowmm<\/p>\n
Wm. .53
\nOwowmm<\/p>\n
wm. H o
\nOnowmm<\/p>\n
mm.mw.\u00bb…m_.,VV<\/p>\n
032$ ..\n<\/p>\n
mmm CNN mm\u00bb<\/p>\n
_….E_.G3 mm<\/p>\n
I.\n<\/p>\n
 …Ow9.mm.I.  I<\/p>\n
352 mm\u00bb<\/p>\n
 mm. Sena<\/p>\n
Owowmw<\/p>\n
?\n<\/p>\n
I30.\n<\/p>\n
cannot be construed as creating an unquali\ufb01ed
\nright on the part of any and every  2
\npersons to insist that the Corporation.sh’oul,d”:’ ‘
\nprovide a parking place  its  v”‘{‘hev’4 l”
\nstatute will become unwor3l{able’p.i;f
\nconstrued as obligingpctthe (:orp’oration.,
\nparking place to any  it
\nas that of the re.spondentVs’pvto”–~par1r tliveiryehicles.
\nWe do not think”‘-that  was correct
\nin directing the  t’o~vcor1j,t-i,i1ue to provide<\/p>\n
the site ‘i’n\ufb02:,,’dispute -V.V~to”\u00abVthe.”‘Vr\u00a7:_spondents for an<\/p>\n
  best, there can only<\/p>\n
be a consider the needs of the
\nrespondents,  of the requirements of<\/p>\n
5 public” Iiintereslt,  ll examine if they can be
\nflaccoinzrnodated’ elsewhere inside or outside the city
\n  liniit.s_=cjand, if it is possible to permit the
\n to park their vehicles on such site on
\n such-\u00abfterrns and conditions as may be decided<\/p>\n
 We direct accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
V’ ,  “_\u00abViewed thus, the integrated evaluation of the RFPS of<\/p>\n
   the parties on the basis of NPV a common platform, by<\/p>\n
Manasa and Strut Geo, is in consonance with the basis<\/p>\n
UL<\/p>\n
 ix’:  –\n<\/p>\n
. ..Deprecipatio1′”.t  \/ <\/p>\n
.62,<\/p>\n
b. Net worth of the applicant as on Marcp’i:1″*3l,
\n2005 shall be atleast Rs.1O crores.;H_”‘-  <\/p>\n
c. Aggregate net cash accruals-<\/p>\n
applicant for the last two~ <\/p>\n
\ufb01nancial years shall 3 atlealst “*Rs_.:f’iVp\u00a2<\/p>\n
crores.” V l l A’ ‘
\nAppendix 6 of  proifidvesgeneral
\ninstructions    <\/p>\n
” General Instructio’ns:__V  f<\/p>\n
.Net Cash Accruals” – if V<\/p>\n
 –{p1″ofit After; Tax \/ Depreciation \/
\n  ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
Fo1~.V_p4’Partn.era}u:’3~~ M [Pro\ufb01t After Tax \/
\nl A it Expenses \/<\/p>\n
Non cash<\/p>\n
”  Erno~l-urnents paid out to Partners)
\n. Net<\/p>\n
it =  (Subscribed and Paid\ufb02up Capital \/<\/p>\n
Re.serves) — (Revaluation reserves \/ Miscellaneous<\/p>\n
it .. expenditure not written off)<\/p>\n
A’ capital account \/ Reserves<\/p>\n
For Partnership Firm — Aggregate of partners’
\nAggregate of<\/p>\n
l\/4.’<\/p>\n
V O .’ ff ‘6. ‘ .\n<\/p>\n
.63<\/p>\n
drawings by partners ~ Aggregate of  _<\/p>\n
partners<\/p>\n
3.Year 1 shall be the <\/p>\n
Ymmmmmamn\ufb01mmwnm\ufb02wmw<\/p>\n
4.The \ufb01nancial year’ would  the sanie”‘as”Vthe one
\nnormally followed”  its Annual
\nReport – _-tw*–‘ l” t*”t<\/p>\n
5.The   audited annual
\n\ufb01zialnoiall .s\u00a3atern.ents’ asw-required for this RFQ.
\nVVi:’failureVtofd:o be considered as a non-<\/p>\n
(:’;.'”i’he  should clearly indicate the<\/p>\n
‘caicu1_ations” “” and references in the financial<\/p>\n
it  _ s’t.a’ternVe11–ts in arriving at the above numbers in<\/p>\n
it ”  an uajttaehed worksheet.”<\/p>\n
  ‘The report of IDECK on the RFQ evaluation, it is
\n * eontlended though observed that the 591 respondent is
\n ineligible, nevertheless the 7th respondent–Asst.<\/p>\n
T Commissioner addressed a letter dt. 28.12.2005 to the<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
.64<\/p>\n
5th respondent informing that it had  for<\/p>\n
submission of the proposal subject  <\/p>\n
letter of undertaking as per the fottna.t”‘enc10sed’ 7<\/p>\n
42. This submissio’r’1’wl_V’is _fact2u’a1ly”:inc:orrect. The
\nreport Annexure~R’?.0p”–to .sta_t\u20acn1~ent of objections of
\nthe 53\u00b0 respondent,submitted pursuant to<\/p>\n
the preah-;d \u00a7}e’x_ercise” _disc3eses””a summary of the<\/p>\n
pI'(31iIIlii*1’l.Eli’_’\\3″\u20acl}&}Ll.al:i0\ufb02 recomijg that the 5*” respondent
\nis “l5″ro\\}’i4sional~ljr\u00ab.Qu  and on obtaining clari\ufb01cation
\nfrom the ..5i” Ifevspdondelnt, the final evaluation summary<\/p>\n
..c_thatx”the—5th respondent is quali\ufb01ed and reads<\/p>\n
 tl’11.1s:.,_d  A<\/p>\n
 Holdings and Investments Pvt.
\n”  (MHIPL) has a sum of Rs.22,15,00,000
\n(Rupees Twenty Two Crores and Fifteen
\nLakhs only) as Share Application Money
\nwhich has been accounted as Capital in the<\/p>\n
Annual Accounts for the year 2004-05. This<\/p>\n
LKL<\/p>\n
435.
\nShare Application Money been considered for<\/p>\n
the computation of the Networth.<\/p>\n
A letter of undertaking’ (format”= letter ‘4
\nenclosed) shall need
\nMHIPL indicating that inl’t.h1e–,eventv.of’A’MHlVPpl\u00a7 t
\nis selected as the ‘the
\ncaptioned project,  ‘shallhcornplete the<\/p>\n
allotment of  s;hares’tfor_ a minimum<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.l_(V)v,’l'(}._(V),C’}’_(_V)V,{t)0-E’:\/v.4′-t[j{Rupees Ten<\/p>\n
   tc’rott;s  :t{(*3′;ftla.l ttjt\ufb01e threshold financial
\n:t”t.pqtia1t\u00a3i:cet\u00a3ioh’t\u00bb  for Networth as
\nspeci\ufb01ed  Within 15 days of such<\/p>\n
  of selection as Successful Bidder<\/p>\n
 uandppprovlidelproof of the same.”<\/p>\n
  u:’Following the observation of IDECK in its<\/p>\n
ll ‘  Q   supra, the 7″? }:espondent~Additional<\/p>\n
 Coinrnissioner (Finance), BMP by letter dt. 28.12.2005<\/p>\n
 ‘._\u00a3lr;nexure\u00bbF enclosed a format of the letter of<\/p>\n
 undertaking for compliance by the 591 respondent which<\/p>\n
was duly complied. in that View of the matter no<\/p>\n
N<\/p>\n
.66.\n<\/p>\n
exception can be taken to the BMP’s <\/p>\n
undertaking of the 5th respond_ent_._<\/p>\n
44. A faint effort
\n5th respondents baiancegpyshdg\u00e9t -for  2003 and
\n2004 put together ‘criteria of average
\nincome of”     two compieted
\n\ufb01nancial’  ”   01}\/i’isVc.W.2868\/2010 for
\namerxdmentd   raising additional
\ngrotmgd’sy’,  on payment of cost quanti\ufb01ed
\nat ‘Rs.50~,00O complied with, the additional<\/p>\n
 are i’jLna-vailabie to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
 ‘::Even otherwise the criteria in the RFP is<\/p>\n
average income for the \ufb01nancial years 2003-04 and<\/p>\n
 ei2o04m05 and not 200203 and 2003-04 as contended.<\/p>\n
 Learned Sizcounsel for the 5th respondent is correct in<\/p>\n
pointing out to the audited balance sheet for the years<\/p>\n
2003-04 and 2004~05 disclosing Rs.50,26,80,972\/– as<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
.67.\n<\/p>\n
total income and the average of two years-_ being<\/p>\n
Rs.25,13,40,486\/– is more than Rs.20  5th<\/p>\n
respondent declared Rs.22,15,00,0()_0:A’\/_’~-3  <\/p>\n
application money, and  has <\/p>\n
audited annual accounts __for theiyear  x\u00e9vliioll
\nwhen reckoned to compute’ net  ispompliance
\nwith the \ufb01nancial <\/p>\n
46. The last of ‘the 6′,oontentioi_1sCadvanced by the<\/p>\n
petitioner’ need’V’3r3ot\u00abdeteain the court for long. During the
\npendieney. of 2006 fiied by the petitioner<\/p>\n
chaiienging resolution dt. 30.10.2006 of the BMP<\/p>\n
 \u00ab-the resolution dt. 19.5.2006 of the Committee<\/p>\n
 ~_  Vv’or_1.<_sszrecommending the award of the project to the<\/p>\n
 rvevspoindent, the Governor, during President's rule<\/p>\n
" 'appointed an Executive Committee which passed the<\/p>\n
 order dated 23.5.2008 to cancei the resolution dt.<\/p>\n
30.10.2006 of the Council of the BMP, reads thus:<\/p>\n
j\ufb02x<\/p>\n
SUBJECT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE<\/p>\n
CASE SHEET
\nDepartment file No: UDD 261 MNG 2006
\nDate of issue of Executive<\/p>\n
Submission Note : Circulated Subject. Committee Case
\nNo.I3CC 198\/2008<\/p>\n
Date of Serial SUBJECT:\n<\/p>\n
Executive Number in<\/p>\n
Committee the Agenda<\/p>\n
Joint venture Jpmject <\/p>\n
meeting Private–Pub1ic–P\u00e9_rtjoipafio11 -3 {P_PF’.}_  ‘<\/p>\n
mode at Ezipura, Kora:nang’a1.a.=. ”
\n23.05.2008 4   ‘ *<\/p>\n
E><1\u00a3cU'i'1x{E..ecoMMiTi*E\u00a33_:<\/p>\n
 The ,Excc_u.-ti'Ve,. Conimittee
\nCie_c1'ded–_ {to ~  V.car1cei the
\nresolution No. 13_{Se06)e dated<\/p>\n
30.10.2006  p'\u00e9:sse'd' by the
\nCiouncil; of"\u00ab.131iu11at;. Bangalore
\nMah\u00e9inagaim  Paiike and<\/p>\n
1  directeazi '-\u00abthe Department of
\n_  _. "IJ1jb'2{t'1 f~-*Dejve1opn1ent to
\n_ ____  _  ' '*-1;,:__co1nn1unic.a,te7 the decision
\nV  '  afte1T_ getting the concurrence
\ntfrorn the Election Commission.<\/p>\n
\n Sd\/~\n\n THAKUR}\nA  A GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA\n . . . . . .. ' \n\nemc\ufb01\u00e9 Egan    1  \"\n\n<\/pre>\n
 \ufb01sw\u00e9oc\u00e9 \u00e9\u00e9rsn  a;:gr.~{e..vear:3,;-..ta’csass:i;\u00a2 amass.-sea<\/p>\n
 “s;ac:;ee \u00a7asa”ez1′:3: e:;~<\u00bb.:1;,\\;:.-.oF  <\/p>\n
59.\n<\/p>\n
47. Thereafter the Governor on 29.5.2008′-passed<\/p>\n
the following order:\n<\/p>\n
” As directed by HE. the”Qovernorftnex’Fiie ‘wads’; <\/p>\n
called from the Cabinet Se\u00e92tio:i’e.and\u00bb._dthe’ isVsL:e”i’T1vvas <\/p>\n
discussed, with the Advocate C–e’nerai.r,\u00bb”u’h”iA’h:e_.
\nGeneral has opined the  Exceilenevv-Z  Governor<\/p>\n
may order as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Now that  V V\u00bb    Committee<\/p>\n
has _,can’ee11eid   Resolution, the<\/p>\n
  the_WVE3]Ed3MP are directed to
\n j taltie’   taking into consideration
\n t1n.Vateria}’.,_ ” iriciuding the IDECK Report
\n dated’ .. February 2006 as well as the<\/p>\n
 ;,.\ufb01:;oi1ditionV”Hot the buildings during monsoon<\/p>\n
  r.   urgency to provide adequate shelter<\/p>\n
{of  families.”\n<\/p>\n
‘ ‘ ‘ H.E. may order as above.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/- 29.5.2008<\/p>\n
[Sharada Subrarnaniam]
\nSpecial Secretary to Governor.”<\/p>\n
.70.\n<\/p>\n
48. Following the said order,~\u00ab~~-.’4.t1fie__i:4″.j’ State<\/p>\n
Government issued Govt. Order (it.  <\/p>\n
‘AH’ exercising power under    .0<\/p>\n
Act’, which when .=p1aceci’._v_”‘before’-‘V-0.   com
\nW.P. l6216\/ 2006 was   become
\ninfructuous by ordertllirlt.  _<\/p>\n
   petitioner, the 5″‘<\/p>\n
respor1d–en’t and  association representing the
\ndisplaced  the popular government<\/p>\n
installeduon  whence the State Government<\/p>\n
  \u00bbnoticed’*——–that the order dt. 23.5.2008 of the<\/p>\n
S    basis for the G.O. dt. 9.6.2008, not being<\/p>\n
 speaking order since reasons were not forthcoming<\/p>\n
and.,V__’3’ no consideration of relevant materials,<\/p>\n
‘gtalntamounted to denial of justice in the matter of<\/p>\n
 canceliing the Councils resolution dt. 30.10.2006.<\/p>\n
exercised jurisdiction under Subsection (4) of Section 98<\/p>\n
UL<\/p>\n
.71.\n<\/p>\n
of the ‘KMC Act’ to pass the order impugIie–d}l
\n98(4) of the ‘KMC Act’ reads thus: d’ L. d V<\/p>\n
“98. Submission of copies’ ji)f’.v1’\u00e9:s_Oli1t5.0I;ii;9TT
\nGovernment and Governmerttsls power to e:i11’c’e.}.V”~<\/p>\n
resolution and ordersi  ~<\/p>\n
xxx<\/p>\n
XXX <\/p>\n
3-_,VGo’ven1ment;. rnayd  arty’ time, on further<\/p>\n
:”‘?\u00b0P\u00b0E”\n<\/p>\n
.:represencta\u00a3\ufb01i:o,n’ *–.[i:)y’=_ the Corporation or<\/p>\n
“””   “revise’;’-rnodify or revoke an order
\n.V V    strb–section [3] <\/p>\n
  power thus being validly traced
\n Aiheirtgghad to the consideration of relevant
\nV   a hearing on the decision making, the
\nd’  statutory power cannot be struck down on
\nthe .V:ground that review of the order of the Governor
\n ‘wivirefquired the leave of this court in W.P.16216\/2006
\nsince dismissed as infructuous by order dt. 9.6.2008.<\/p>\n
The further contention that the order dt; 9.6.2008<\/p>\n
dismissing W.P.16216\/2006 resulted In a civil action<\/p>\n
Jxk<\/p>\n
.79.\n<\/p>\n
being decided, in the circumstances, be<\/p>\n
countenanced. The contention, in   <\/p>\n
the Governors decision, decided.yth.e”.iis4_’b.etwe_en,__two <\/p>\n
bidders and hence they were entitled <\/p>\n
of hearing, is unacceptable;.Vl’V:’ I._\u00bbsay”*s_o_”VbecVause while
\nCancelling the resolti”ti_oI’ip    of the BMP
\nwhen cancelled by-” Committee of the
\nGovernor,   award the Project
\nto  was no necessity for<\/p>\n
 opportunity of hearing before<\/p>\n
‘ revoking._thatllorde_r’.  otherwise a fair consideration
\n offers of petitioner and the 5th respondent no<\/p>\n
V  are involved. This court, it is needless to
\n  consider the larger interest of public rather
\n inter–se interest between rival bidders, as<\/p>\n
it = iblisserved by the Apex Court in Raunaq International<\/p>\n
E and Jagadish Manlal’s case (supra).<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
.7 3.\n<\/p>\n
51. Byelaw 9.10.3 of the Bangalore<\/p>\n
Palike Bylaws, 2003 (for short ‘Bylavrsi Floor <\/p>\n
Area Ratio [FAR] as the aggregate     oi.<\/p>\n
parts of the building inclpudingll’
\nstaircase rooms, ramps,   rooms,
\nbalcony, ducts   izvater tank.\n<\/p>\n
lobbies, corridors   provide for
\ncommon  area used for
\nparking _  ,   ramps, escalators,
\nmachine  ducts including sanitary
\nducts   Having regard to the magnitude
\n constru:c,tiQrvi of the residential mu1ti–storied \ufb02ats
\n‘  for,  offered by the petitioner being \u00a3112,413 sq.ft
\n‘l A  by the 531 respondent is 6,532.36 sq.ft
\n‘the commercial building of 11,97,640 sq.ft and
\nit   sq.ft respectively, requires technical expertise
\nE in the matter of evaluation of RFPS and is best to leave<\/p>\n
the matter for decision of those who are quali\ufb01ed to<\/p>\n
address the issues as has been done by the BMP calling<\/p>\n
bk<\/p>\n
.74.\n<\/p>\n
upon an evaluation of RFPS by two consul-tants.d.j’ [The<\/p>\n
action of the BMP or the evaluation <\/p>\n
in my considered opinion cannot.Tibet’-.characterised. as <\/p>\n
neither arbitrary or irra_tional__ ‘so a’s”d’ jgtov  for
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
52. The obse’rvatio’n_ j. a””D.livis.ion Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in 4_:’S__.M.Rab”::’:: \u00e9trgd\u00e9is –v- Deputy<\/p>\n
ComiIzissi’o’r1eE*;:.; ani1′.d\u00bbothae’rs’\u00bbi-rid W.A. No.2669\/1999 and
\nbatch’   the scope of judicial<\/p>\n
review of ..administ1_”ative experts in the circumstances is<\/p>\n
 ‘~  .,    ….. .. n<\/p>\n
  Two overriding considerations should
\n with and guide the reviewing Court to
\n*~ ‘narrow the scope of review. The first is that of
\n“deference to the administrative expert. Chief
\nJustice Neely in Monongahela Power Co. V.
\nPSCU79, I89[W.Va. 1981] observed thus :<\/p>\n
“I have very few illusions about my own<\/p>\n
limitations as a judge and from those limitations I<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
.71′ S<\/p>\n
generalize to the inherent iimitations,..__llof<\/p>\n
appellate Courts reviewing rate cases. : V’<\/p>\n
remembered that this Court’ sees .ap}3ro}t’iriiately  <\/p>\n
1,262 cases a year with \ufb01ve judges.”_ggI’:a1n_ <\/p>\n
accountant, electrical engineer,’ kfinancievr, ” ba~.nlker,.. V pl ”<\/p>\n
stock broker, or systems”-management’   It
\nis the height of folly to  judges’ intelligently to
\nreview a 5,00l)’,_ pag’eW_  the
\nintricacies of public,e_utilit3,:7′ <\/p>\n
47. In ‘Blames, CQLln.’qz’V,”tlGa;’risOIt Diversion[312
\nN.Vl[.*’2’d,__20..,f{r1’;d_,_._l981l’={itwas held that it is not<\/p>\n
 fu.ric_tiorllof judgellto act as a super board.<\/p>\n
:”I+_’urther,:  “Coal League V. United<\/p>\n
state-S5694 f;’2h..::i7s”t5th Cir, 1982), it was held<\/p>\n
. ., that the Arevtewinglvjudge cannot act with the zeal of<\/p>\n
  pedantic ———- schoolmaster. In Granville V.
\n.,Gregory(83 M0. 123, 137 (1884)). it has opined that<\/p>\n
1 Court were to review fully the decision of a<\/p>\n
bodybsuch as a State board of medical examiners –<\/p>\n
.. l’l’if would \ufb01nd itself wandering amid the mazes of<\/p>\n
therapeutics or boggling at the mysteries of the
\npharmacopoeia.” In Steenerson v. Great North
\nR.R.{72 NW. 713, 716 (Minn. 1897)) it was opined
\nthat the situation pointed out in Granville V.
\nGregory(supra), is not a case of the blind leading<\/p>\n
the blind, but of one who has always been deaf and<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
.76.\n<\/p>\n
blind insisting that he an see and hear betteie:.,
\none who has always had his eyesight and  l at
\nand has always used them to; *”the:f..   it
\nadvantage in ascertaining the  _ <\/p>\n
matter in question.\n<\/p>\n
48. Thus it is not  “legitiinatexpovverl of
\nthe Court within thevp..tioinairi_.p’ of jititiieialsireview
\npower to lightly ‘interfere administrative or
\nexecutive action. the base of
\nwhich_is–:t;he_   expertise in<\/p>\n
the ._We\u00ab’d.o.notl”tind any flaw, legal<\/p>\n
 thepart lof”t’r1le Board in altering the
\nl*Ir1e~thod  and by that action none of<\/p>\n
 L legal   the appellants–petitioners are
\n impaiied V er violated. On the other hand, the
\n .d:isc.ussion’ supra clearly shows that the alteration
\n..of.th,e”~:nethod is in the interest of the appellants-<\/p>\n
1 ‘V and the similarly circumstanced<\/p>\n
‘ pt  Before parting I must place on record the
\nit  it ‘teynaclious and pains taking advocacy presented by the<\/p>\n
 learned senior counsel for the parties and the learned<\/p>\n
l Advocate General for the State. The subject matter<\/p>\n
Lt\ufb01<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of … on 21 September, 2010 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy -1- IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA,~ DATED THIS THE 22′ THE HON’BLE MR.JUsT1OE agony” A WRIT PETITION No. ‘,]”‘.”\u00bb\u00bbq’VVV:’9-V1’.8’VV\ufb02F 2003. (1.3%.-BM?) AND WRIT PETITION .N0\u00a7:1}\u00a3\u00ab55V4’\u00ab5’65\/2009(LB-BMP) 1Nw.P.13918g2008: ‘ AKRUTI CITIfY’L’.f?D T. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAkruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of ... on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of ... on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-05T06:49:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"47 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of … on 21 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-05T06:49:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":8962,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of ... on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-05T06:49:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of … on 21 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of ... on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of ... on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-05T06:49:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"47 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of … on 21 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-05T06:49:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010"},"wordCount":8962,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010","name":"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of ... on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-05T06:49:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akruti-city-ltd-formerly-known-as-vs-his-highness-the-governor-of-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Akruti City Ltd Formerly Known As vs His Highness The Governor Of … on 21 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}