(This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the tender Notification dt. 5.2.09 published in kannada Prabha, A Kannada Daily news paper [Shimoga Edition] dt.7.2.09, in ANN-G. Direct the respondent to execute the contract as per the letter dt. 30.12.08, vide ANN-D.)

The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the Tender notification dated 5.2.09 published in Kannada Prabha, a Kannada daily news paper [Shimoga Edition] 7.2.09, in Annexure-G, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondent to execute the contract as per the letter dated 30.12.08, vide Annexure-D.

2. The grievance of the petitioner as made out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, petitioner is a reputed Security Agency and is one of the leading Security Agents and Labour Contractors in the State of Karnataka and is registered under Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961. The petitioner, in pursuance to the notification issued by the respondent dated 11.12.2008, has submitted his tender on 26.12.2008. The same has been accepted and a communication has been sent to the petitioner on 30.12.2008 calling upon to execute an agreement. It is the further case of the petitioner that, inspite of his persuasion, respondent has not executed the contract in his favour in the light of the communication dated 30.12.2008 and on contrary, he has proceeded to issue the impugned notification, calling fresh tenders by withdrawing the earlier notification issued on 11.12.2008, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that, the impugned notification issued by respondent is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act and respondent has no power for not signing the agreement, when the Board of Directors took a decision and accepted the tender application submitted by the petitioner. Having regard to these backgrounds, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present this writ petition, seeking appropriate relief, as stated supra.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent.

4. The principal submission canvassed by learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned notification issued by the respondent is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act and he cannot issue the impugned notification until and unless he withdraws the earlier notification dated 11.12.2008 in pursuance of which, petitioner has participated in the said tender, his tender has been accepted and a communication has been sent to him on 30th December 2008 in the light of the decision taken by the Board of Directors. Further, he submitted that, the Managing Director of the respondent has no power for not executing the agreement in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the communication dated 30.12.2008 and for issuing fresh notification calling tenders and the said exercise done by him cannot be sustained. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, the impugned Notification is liable to be set aside at threshold and appropriate direction is to be issued to the respondent to execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the communication dated 30.12.2008.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent at the outset submitted that, petitioner cannot question the correctness of the impugned notification on the ground that, respondent has sent a communication dated 30.12.2008 to the petitioner calling upon to execute the agreement and the said communication issued by respondent is only a provisional communication subject to compliance of other terms and conditions of the notification. Further, he submitted that, respondent after realising that there is some mistake in the notification while mentioning the wages of the Gunman and Supervisor and in