Akruti City Ltd. Formerly known as Akruti Nirman Ltd. vs His Highness The Governor of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—At a stage after the completion of the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the parties and when the Court was seeking clarifications from the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, the writ petitioner has filed this application on 10.03.2010, for leave of the Court to place on record by way of additional plea and documents in support of the reliefs in the main petition. The additional facts, according to the applicant are in relation to the Balance sheet as on 31.3.2004 and 31.3.2006 of the respondent-company; the partial occupancy certificate dated 18.5.2005; financial criteria for qualification as per RFQ, comparative statement on the basis of papers produced as Annexure-''R15'' and memo of the 5th respondent filed on 10.12.2009; FAR area calculation of Part-C Residential Block of 5th respondent said to be issued by Partner of Tharesh Associates, and a statement showing parking amount of Garuda Mall (BBMP), after deducting management fee.

The application is opposed by filing statement of objections interalia contending that the application is filed at a belated stage to protract the proceedings, more appropriately after the petition was heard elaborately at various stages and after it was once reserved for judgment on 17.12.2009. In addition, it is stated that the averments in the application are inaccurate, untenable and a desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead the Court. Paragraph 5 of the objections it is stated that Clause 3.5.1 of the RFQ provides for at least one out of the three criteria to be fulfilled. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent submits that "1" as typed is a error which ought to be read as ''2''. The other averments are more argumentative in nature.

To the statement of objections, is filed a rejoinder stating that the facts set out in the application regarding ineligibility of Respondent No.5, in view of the RFQ, came to the notice of the petitioner only when this Court directed the 5th respondent to produce the Balance Sheet. It is then that the petitioner browsed through the internet and secured the same. The eligibility norms stipulated in the RFQ as contended in Paragraph 3 of the rejoinder are but arguments already advanced.

Although after having heard the learned Senior counsel for the parties elaborately for considerable length of time before the Winter vacation and reserved the case for judgment, nevertheless, in the written arguments a plea when advanced that this Court ought not to have heard the matter as it was not the roster court, I declined to pass judgment. Later on, the Master of Rolls having assigned the roster, the petition is placed for hearing and having noticed that hearing was complete and no scope for the petitioner to advance the very plea raised in the written arguments, arguments were taken as heard.

In order to refresh the Court''s memory certain clarification were sought from the Senior counsel for the respondent, whence the petitioner having heard the arguments put-forth by its learned Counsel and the respondent, appears to have suddenly opened its eyes to certain material by browsing through the internet and hence this application.

Be that as it may, there is loss of sufficient public time as is noticed from the elaborate orders animated in the ordersheet. Nevertheless, in order to extend as much reasonable opportunity of hearing, as possible to the petitioner, this application is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court. The additional facts and documents Annexures-P1 to P8 in the application and P9 and P10 in the rejoinder are taken on record.