S.V. Bandi vs The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department and Others

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.—Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2.

Notice to respondent 3 is dispensed with since the order to be passed Will not affect him.

Petitioner has sought for a direction to dispose of appeals vide Annexures-A and C both filed on 1-1-2013. Since the first respondent has not decided the appeals on merits, these writ petitions are filed.

As could be seen from Annexures-A and C, statutory appeals are filed by the petitioner u/s 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (Karnataka Act 29 of 2000) (''Act'' for short) on 1-1-2013. Already two months have lapsed. However, the appeals are not decided. The grievance of the petitioner is that the work order will be issued in favour of the successful bidder and if such action is taken by respondents 1 and 2, appeals will become infructuous. Such appeals will have to be decided as per law as early as possible. The Act prescribes 30 days for deciding the appeals.

Hence, the first respondent is directed to decide the appeals on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible but not later than the outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent 2 not to issue work order in favour of successful bidder. Such a relief cannot be granted in this writ petition, inasmuch as the petitioner had already approached the Appellate Authority. Since the Appellate Authority has to decide the appeals on merits, the second relief is refused.

Writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.