.

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties on Interlocutory Application nos. 2 and 3 of 2013, filed by the respondents for vacating the ex-parte order of stay granted as on 26.4.2013. The petitioners are said to be service providers engaged in collection and disposal of solid waste material in the city of Bangalore, on behalf of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BBMP', for brevity), at land fill sites designated by the BBMP. The petitioners are said to have been so engaged by the BBMP for the past 10 years, and some of them for the past 20 years.

The petitioners had approached this court earlier in writ petitions in WP 47597-47611/2012, WP 39337-39354/2012 and WP 44763-44777/2012, challenging the government order dated 18.9.2012, cancelling the earlier bid and a proposal made by the Commissioner, BBMP on the same day and duly approved by the Government also on the same day. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 26.4.2013, however, the petitioners did not have the benefit of a copy of the order as on the date that the present writ petition was filed and were unaware of the order passed therein.

The petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Government order dated 20.3.2013 bearing No. UDD 793 MNY 2012 as per Annexure-A passed by the first respondent and the Circular dated 19.4.2013 bearing No. Commissioner/P.S.R.(4)/544/13-14 produced as Annexure-B passed by the respondent no. 3 as arbitrary and abuse of the process of the Court and amounts to interference with the course of justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Forebear the respondents from proceeding with fresh tender process till the election process is over and the entire decision for fresh tender process is taken up only after the newly constituted Government and after the disposal of the various petitions pending before this court?

2. The petitioners have called in question two sets of tenders, the BBMP had issued eight tender notices for the purpose of collection and disposal of solid waste within the city of Bangalore. The said tender notices dated 18.9.2012 were issued in respect of 89 packages. It transpires the BBMP had received responses in respect of 81 packages and had not received any response in respect of 8 packages. Of the 81 bids received, four were excluded as the same did not qualify. The BBMP had ought approval of the State Government in respect of 77 packages, by its letter dated 31.10.2012. The State Government is said to have accorded its approval in respect of 76 packages, as per its order dated 21.11.2012. The government took note of the fact that in respect of one particular package-its approval was not warranted.

In so far as the remaining 12 packages, out of the total of 89) packages, the re-tendering process is said to have been approved by the State Government by its letter dated 3.11.2012.

3. The BBMP is said to have issued a tender notification dated 3.11.2012 in respect of the said 12 packages. The BBMP, however, sent a proposal dated 2.3.2013 to the State Government, seeking approval of the tenders since the bid amount in respect of each contract exceeded Rs. 5 crore. The government granted approval to proceed with the tender in respect of 12 packages, vide government order dated 20.3.2013, pursuant to which a circular dated 19.4.2013 was issued. It is the said government order and circular that are under challenge in this petition.

4. It is contended that the Government having permitted the BBMP to issue tender notifications for 38 packages and the financial approval granted for 12 packages, is violative of the Code of conduct. The Code of Conduct was issued by the Chief Election commission of India, on 20.3.2013, in view of the ensuing assembly elections in the State. The State Government's decision therefore was contrary to the code of conduct and ab initio void.

It is