M. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

- karnataka transparency in publicprocurements act, 1999.[k.a. no. 29/2000]. section 9: [anand byareddy, j]tender for establishing state-wide area network - constitution of tenders accepting authority multi-member committee (nsc) appointed for procurement entity discharging function to examine recommendations received from governments consultants received from governments consultants on implementation of state wide area network (kswan), to consider-recommendations of consultant on preparation of tender documents and detailed evaluation criterion in respect of same as well as to examine selection of bidder nsc also discharged function to recommend to government final bidder for network held, such committee shall be deemed to be tender accepting authority. appointment of technical sub-committee in tender security committee employs a vigilant circumspection and care. it cannot be said that it was a whimsical or mala fide action to discredit or disqualify any tenderer. - the poor farmer having paid the money, is entitled for reconveyance even assuming it has been purchased by the state government in the execution proceedings......further, it is submitted that, even though the entire amount is paid, the execution proceedings continued and in the said execution proceedings the property was purchased by the state government as there were no bidders. again the petitioner in order to get the sale set aside was called upon to pay a sum of rs. 3,450/- which includes the loan and miscellaneous expenditure incurred by the bank. the said amount was also paid on 30-3-1984. again the respondent 2-bank called upon the petitioner to pay 5% solatium of the sale consideration for the purpose of reconveying the property to the petitioner. this amount was also paid by the petitioner.3. thereafter, when the petitioner approached the deputy commissioner to reconvey the property, the deputy commissioner by his notice dated 23-5-1996 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the said land has already been distributed to other persons. the statement made by the petitioner that he has paid the amount during the pendency of the execution proceedings and had also paid the amount once again even though he is not due on 30-3-1984 and the payment of solatium at 5% are not disputed by the respondents even though they are served.4. when such being the case, there is no justification for the deputy commissioner to refuse the request of the petitioner for reconveyance of the property. the poor farmer having paid the money, is entitled for reconveyance even assuming it has been purchased by the state government in the execution proceedings. therefore, the notice issued by the deputy commissioner refusing to reconvey is liable to be quashed.5. if at all the state government has paid any amount to the 2nd respondent-bank while purchasing the property, it is open for the deputy commissioner to recover the same from the 2nd respondent-bank. but this right to recover shall not come in the way of deputy commissioner reconveying the property to the petitioner.6. in the result, i pass the following order:(1).....