N. K. Patil, J.

Petitioner in this petition is M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited represented by its authorised signatory. Petitioner has sought for calling the record from the first respondent pertaining to calling for, consideration and acceptance of the tenders in package II of Upper Bhadra Lift Irrigation Project upon publication of invitation of tender as per Annexure-A. Further, petitioner has sought for quashing all the proceedings accepting the tender of the third respondent by the first respondent pertaining to package II of Upper Bhadra Lift Irrigation Project as per Annexure -K dated 30th September 2008 and to direct the first respondent to award the contract for implementation of the package II of Upper Bhadra Lift Irrigation Project to the petitioner.

2. Facts in brief are that, the first respondent herein issued the notice inviting the tenders on EPC (TURN KEY) basis for the Upper Bhadra Lift Irrigation Scheme under two packages. Package I was relating to lifting of 15 TMC of water and Package II related to lifting of 21.5 TMC of water. The subject matter involved in this petition is only in respect of package II relating to lifting of 21.5 TMC of water. Both petitioner and third respondent herein had participated in the aforesaid tender proceedings. The Accepting Authority of the Nigam - the first respondent, after evaluation of the entire material available on record and in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 read with its Rules, has accepted the tenders and awarded the same to the third respondent. Questioning the correctness of the said order, awarding tender to the third respondent and seeking other reliefs, petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for third respondent and learned Counsel appearing for first respondent at the outset raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. In substantiation of the said submission, they have taken me through the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act (Act for short) and Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules (Rules for short and specifically pointed out that, under Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Rules, an appeal lies before the appellate authority. Therefore, they submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself, on the ground that, petitioner has, in fact, got an alternative, inexpensive, speedy, effective and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, as referred above.

4. Further, learned Senior Counsel appearing for third respondent, has taken me through the definition of Section 2(c) of the said Act which states that, Government means the State Government, and placed reliance on the General Clauses Act wherein State Government has been specifically explained. Therefore, he submitted that, in the instant case, petitioner has got the remedy before the State Government only for the reason that, the contract awarded in favour of third respondent is, by the competent authority - first respondent Niravari Nigam, after accepting its highest bid. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected. Further, to substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 and specifically pointed out that, when petitioner has got remedy before the competent appellate authority, petitioner must approach the said authority by taking all the grounds urged in the instant writ petition. Without exhausting the said remedy, petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

Further, he placed reliance on Rule 37 of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 19