Karnataka High Court V. Gokulkrishna vs M.C. Nanaiah on 13 May, 1993 Equivalent citations: ILR1993KAR1615 JUDGMENT Shivashankar Bhat, J 1. The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. Respondents1 and 2 before us are the petitioners who filed the Writ Petition. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is ranked as 5th respondent in this Appeal, while the second respondent is the 4th respondent before us. The Writ Petition seems to have been filed on 16th July 1992. On 22.9.1992 the learned Single Judge ordered the State Government not to make any further payment to the appellant and the said order was continued thereafter. The Writ Petition was allowed on 3.12.1992. 2. The petitioners sought the quashing of a Government Order dated 31.3.1992 whereby approval was accorded for purchase of 100 numbers of Apple Macintosh Computer Systems from M/s. Classik Computer Systems ('the appellant') at a total cost of Rs. 5.27 crores, with the configuration stated therein, and, which shall be subject to the approval of the High Power Committee and the Technical Advisory Panel. The order also approved release of 30% of the total amount as advance payment subject to meeting the expenditure from the contingency fund initially and subject to regularisation later. Petitioners, further, sought for a direction to the appellant herein to refund the advance sum of Rs. 1.58 crores. The petitioners also sought a Mandamus to respondents2 to 4 in the Writ Petition to refund the sum of Rs. 1.58 crores jointly or severally. The first petitioner is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Council and is the Leader of the Opposition. The second petitioner is a citizen of this Country who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly for two terms between the years 1967 and 1978. He was also a Minister in the State Cabinet earlier; he was also a Member of the Loksabha between 1979 and 1989. As persons interested in the administration of the State, in accordance with the Constitution and Law, they have approached this Court. According to the Writ Petition there was a news item published on 1st July 1992 stating that respondents2 and 3 in the Writ Petition have passed an order on 31.3.1992 and that the entire deal was finalised just within one hour and a sum of Rs. 1.58 crores was paid as advance at about 5.40 p.m. The petitioners filed a copy of the letter addressed by the appellant to the Additional Chief Secretary on 31.3.1992 as AnnexureC to the Writ Petition. They have also produced a copy of the proceedings dated 7.5.1992, of the Technical Advisory Panel as AnnexureD, whereunder the Technical Advisory Panel ('the TAP' for short) after examining the proposal to purchase the Apple Macintosh Computer Systems opined that it was nonstandard, nonpopular and noncompatible with the IBM and IBM based systems and also not manufactured in India; the TAP pointed out several draw backs and ultimately suggested that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms ('DPAR' for short) should procure equivalent IBM based systems from rate contract firm. According to the petitioners there was undue haste in finalising the release of Rs. 1.58 crores on 31.3.1992. The Writ Petition describes the sequence of events as follows: "3.30 PM (31.3.92): V. Gokulkrishna meets J. Alexander in Vidhana Soudha and gives a proposal to sell 100 Apple Macintosh computers to Government at a total price of Rs. 5.27 crores. 3.40 PM: J. Alexander writes and sends a note recommending purchase of Apple Macintosh to S. Bangarappa for approval. 4.00 PM: S. Bangarappa approves the note and sends it back to J. Alexander. 5.00 PM: The GOs. (Government Orders) are issued approving purchase of 100 Apple Macintosh computers from V. Gokulkrishna. 5.30 PM: The bills are presented to Treasury. 5.40 PM: The Treasury issues a cheque worth Rs. 1.58 crores (as part advance) to personal Assistant to J. Alexander. 5.41 PM (31.3.92) The personal assistant to J. Alexander hands the cheque to V. Gokulkrishna. (Incidentally acknowledgement is taken on a plain paper without stamp)". The petitioners further asserted that fourth respondent (the appellant) has no business premises in the City or in this Country and the address given by him was that of his residence. The business concern "Classik Computer Systems" was not registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Sales Tax Laws. The petitioners also asserted that the Apple Macintosh was an obscure Company. It was further asserted in the Writ Petition that the respondents2 and 3 did not call for tenders for the supply of the articles in question, which was the basic procedure to be followed by the Government. It was also stated that the matter was raised before the Legislature. The sum of Rs. 1.58 crores, according to the petitioners, were thus squandered and that the impugned order was vitiated by fraud, malafide and favouritism and that there was a close nexus between the respo