Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Venkatesh M. R. S/O. Raju K. R vs The Licensing Authority on 3 November, 2022

Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

                            -1-




                                      WP No. 102435 of 2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
    WRIT PETITION NO. 102435 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
   VENKATESH M. R. S/O. RAJU K. R.
   AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
   RESIDING AT MUNIRABAD DAM,
   KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT-583233

                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKESH M BILKI, AND SMR SRUTI CHAGANTI,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
   THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
   KALYANA KARNATAKA ROAD
   TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
   HOSAPETE DIVISION, HOSAPETE-583201.

                                           ...RESPONDENT
       (BY SRI S.V.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED E-TENDER NOTICE NO.11/2022 VIDE
NOTIFICATION      BEARING      NO.KAKASANI/HOVI/SAM/
VANIJYA/422/2022-23 DATED 28.06.2022 AND PRODUCED
HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AND
ISSUE   A   WRIT   IN  THE  NATURE   OF   CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING      ASIDE    ALL    CONSEQUENTIAL
PROCEEDINGS THERETO PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE-M.
     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B- GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-




                                             WP No. 102435 of 2022



                            ORDER

Learned counsel for the respondent/K.S.R.T.C. submits that the tender notification which is impugned in this writ petition was not given effect to in as much as no tender was awarded.

2. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been continued as the Contractor, in view of the earlier contract executed in his favour.

3. In view of the above, it is obvious that the prayer in the writ petition would not survive for consideration. In the event the Contract in favour of the petitioner is sought to be terminated in any manner, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

Writ petition is disposed off.

SD/-

JUDGE CKK