M/S G S MANAGEMENT PVT LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
RP/92/2025 · 2025-03-21
R Devdas
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18066 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18066 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11959 RP No. 92 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO. 92 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M/S G S MANAGEMENT PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SHRI YASHONANDAN P, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1091, 2ND FLOOR, SRNG, SAMPANNAPPA CHARITIES, OTC ROAD, NAGARATHPET, BENGALURU-560002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK & SRI. VASANTH SHETTY., ADVOCATES) AND:
1.
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560001
2.
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560001
3.
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU CITY 560001.
Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11959 RP No. 92 of 2025
4.
BVG INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND A 'COMPANY' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT,2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT BVG HOUSE', PREMIER PLAZA PUNE-MUMBAI ROAD, CHINCHWAD PUNE, MAHARASHTRA -411019 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT BVG HOUSE, NO.47 MILLERS TANK BUND ROAD VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU- 560052
5.
MERU INFO SOLUTIONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, HAVING ITS OFFICER AT NO.07, 2ND FLOOR, OUTER RING ROAD, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560072 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR SRIDHAR KRISHNANIAH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI & SRI. SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA., ADVOCATES FOR R4 SRI. VISHWAS N., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.02.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.31594 OF 2024 ANNEXURE A, PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION AFTER CALLING FOR ALL THE RECORDS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11959 RP No. 92 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is filed at the hands of the writ petitioner seeking review of the order dated 04.02.2025, whereby the writ petition was partly allowed while setting aside the impugned corrigendum dated 08.11.2024 at Annexure-C, while quashing the tender document itself. The Tender Inviting Authority was directed to issue fresh tender, having regard to the observations made by this Court.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had only questioned the corrigendum dated 08.11.2024 and did not question the tender document. However, this Court has proceeded to quash the tender document, although the petitioner did not seek such a prayer. It is further submitted that this Court has noticed in the order that the financial bids were opened and it was evident that the petitioner is the lowest bidder. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the tender document should not have been quashed. It is also submitted that the
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11959 RP No. 92 of 2025
other bidders are now aware of the bid made by the petitioner and if a fresh tender is called for, the competitors will be aware of what would be the bid of the petitioner.
3. In the considered opinion of this Court although it is true that the petitioner did not seek to challenge the tender document, nevertheless, for the reasons stated in the
order, this Court thought it fit to quash the tender document. The order was dictated in the open court in the presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. During the proceedings, this Court also expressed its opinion as to why the tender document itself is required to be quashed. In that view of the matter, the grounds raised in the review petition do not satisfy the requirement of “an error apparent on the face of the record” for maintaining a review petition.
4. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL