High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 10 KAR CK 0155

Smt. N. Mangala vs Government of Karnataka and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 22 October 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Suri Appa Rao, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 25653 of 2011 (GM-TEN)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 280 words

V. Suri Appa Rao, J.—This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the bid offered by the petitioner vide Annexure-E dated 14.06.2011. Petitioner is a president of Shree Naradamuni Seva Samste which is a Service Organization registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Respondent No. 4 had invited tender applications to supply 9 posts (Teaching and Non-Teaching posts) under Sarva Shikshana Abhyana Scheme for the academic year 2011-2012 to the K.G.B.V. Residential School, Telagi, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District. The petitioner offered for sending staff for Teaching and Non-Teaching posts as per Annexure-C for the above said period and complied all the conditions of Tender regarding supply of 9 posts (Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff). But respondent No. 4 granted Tender for respondent No. 5 on the ground that respondent No. 5 had bid for Rs. 46,500/- per Teacher and accepted to pay Professional Tax personally excluding the Salary payable which is least one and the petitioner''s organization offered total bid for an amount of Rs. 51,290/- which is maximum presented in the offer among other bidders. The petitioner therefore filed this petition to issue direction to respondent No. 4 to accept bid offered by the petitioner.

2.

Respondent No. 4 invited tenders for supply of 9 posts (Teaching and Non-Teaching) for the academic year 2011-2012. Respondent No. 4 granted the tender submitted by respondent No. 5 for the academic year 2011-2012 and the period is expired. Therefore, question of accepting the bid offered by the petitioner does not arise. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as having become infructuous.