N.K. Patil, J.

Petitioner in this petition is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the order impugned dated 23rd October 2008 passed in Appeal No.HFW 105 HPC 2008 on the file of the first respondent - appellate authority vide Annexure-H, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to consider the technical bid and open the financial bid of the petitioner-Company.

2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner who is otherwise competent apart from being qualified to participate in the short term E tender dated 4 June 2008 for supply of drugs and chemicals for the period of 2008-09, called by the second respondent herein, as per the tender rules, has submitted its tender and the bidders were required to submit their tenders in two covers, as it is, the technical bid containing the complete details pertaining to technical and qualification criteria and price bid, containing the quote/price for the product quoted. It is the case of petitioner that, it has complied with the aforesaid requirements. Be that as it may, petitioner is informed that, its tender has been rejected for the reason that, "a page of the document sought as per clause A.8 (b) was not up loaded along with the other documents". Immediately, petitioner has brought to the notice of the second respondent by way of a representation that, they have produced the original copy of the above document and the same may be modified and accepted as the non up loading of one page pertaining to Clause A.8 (b) of the tender document was due to the technical snag and not due to any other reason. The said representation submitted by petitioner was not considered and the same was rejected by second respondent, without assigning any valid or cogent reasons, by its order dated 26to September 2008. Assailing the correctness of the said rejection of the tender of the petitioner, petitioner has filed the appeal before the first respondent Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before the Appellate Authority on 23rd October 2008 and the Appellate Authority, after hearing both parties and after considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and after affording substantial opportunity to petitioner through the Counsel, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the proceedings of the Tender Accepting Authority dated 14th August 2008 so far as the appellant (petitioner herein) is concerned. Further, the Appellate Authority, after evalution of the relevant material available on file, in view of the baseless and reckless allegations made by the appellant (petitioner herein), and not fulfilling the terms and conditions of the tender and non compliance of the procedure as envisaged under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 has forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and directed to pay the same to second respondent. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as referred above, vide Annexure-H, petitioner herein felt necessitate to present the instant writ petition.

3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner.

4. After careful perusal of the grounds urged in the instant writ petition including the order impugned passed by first respondent - Appellate Authority, vide Annexure-H, what emerges is that, the Appellate Authority, after considering the grounds urged by petitioner, the stand taken by second respondent in its reply, after framing necessary points for consideration, and after critical evaluation of the relevant material available on file, has passed the impugned order. In my considered view, there is no error or illegality as such committed by the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner and that, the same is in consonance with th