B.V. Nagarathna, J.

1. Petitioners are Councilors of Srinivasapura Town Municipality, respondent 8 herein. They have assailed circular dated 10-11-2014 issued by 1st respondent and circular dated 27-10-2014 issued by 2nd respondent (Annexures-A and B to the writ petitions respectively) and have sought a direction to the 1st respondent to consider their representation dated 5-1-2015. By circulars at Annexures-A and B, it is ordered that the proposed construction of a commercial complex in the place where the Musafeer Khana is situated at Srinivasapura Town is exempted from the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity), more specifically Chapter II therein as notification under Section 4(g) of the said Act has been issued in that regard. According to petitioners, 8th respondent-Authority decided to establish a commercial complex, where presently Musafeer Khana is situated at Khata No. 76 of Srinivasapura Town Municipality. The construction cost of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- has been sanctioned by the 2nd respondent. Respondent 8 sought for release of funds to the 6th respondent by letter dated 19-7-2014, a copy of which is at Annexure-C. Third respondent permitted establishment of a commercial complex and also approved grant of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- for the said project. It was also indicated that the said construction must follow the provisions of the Act and Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 made thereunder and it was directed that the procedure as contemplated under Section 18-A of the Act (E-procurement) must be followed. In that regard, notification dated 12-9-2014 was issued by the 3rd respondent, a copy of which is at Annexure-D. But the 8th respondent had passed a resolution on 18-8-2014. By that resolution, the members of the 8th respondent resolved that the said construction must be handled by the Kolar Nirmithi Kendra i.e., 7th respondent herein. A copy of that resolution dated 18-8-2014 is produced as Annexure-E to the writ petitions. On the basis of that resolution, respondent 5-Deputy Commissioner sent communication dated 1-9-2014 to the 1st respondent-authority regarding the transfer of the construction work to the 7th respondent-Authority (Annexure-F). On the basis of that communication, respondent 3 passed an order invoking clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act, a copy of which is at Annexure-G, dated 7-10-2014. According to petitioners, this order dated 7-10-2014 is illegal as the said order has been passed at the instance of 10th respondent, who is the present member of the Legislative Assembly, Srinivasapura Constituency. Thereafter, notification at Annexure-B, dated 27-10-2014 has been issued, which is assailed in these writ petitions.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 6 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 7 and learned Counsel for respondent 8. Respondent 9 is served and unrepresented and notice to respondent 10 was dispensed with. I have perused the material on record.

3. The main contention of petitioners' Counsel is that the respondent-State ought not to have deviated from the procedure envisaged under Chapter II-A of the Act, which deals with e-procurement, which was one of the conditions envisaged when the sanction to the project was accorded, by invoking clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act. It is his contention that the respondent-Authorities have given a go-bye to e-procurement in the instant case with an oblique motive and that there was no necessity to invoke clause (g) of Section 4 of the Act. He also contended that when throughout entire process the State Government insisted on construction of the commercial complex through e-procurement only, subsequently in the middle of the entire process, there has been a deviation by excluding the provisions of Chapter II from the Act, which is not correct. That