ONNYX ELECTRONICS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.

(2.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the bid of respondent No.3 to be non responsive on account of violation of Clause 29 of the tender notification as well as Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (herein after referred to as 'the Rules' for short) and a direction to respondent No.2 to award the work in question in favour of the petitioner forthwith. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra:

(3.) The petitioner on 24.11.2018 filed an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short). It is the case of the petitioner that the period of 20 days stipulated in tender document for furnishing security deposit expired on 20.11.2018. However, the period for extension of the security deposit was extended and the respondent No.3 furnished the bank guarantee on 01.01.2019, which was sent for validation. It is the case of the petitioner that the bid of the respondent No.3 was accepted in violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT as well as the provisions of the Act framed thereunder. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court.