Petitioner in a writ petition seeking to quash tender process and claim reservation filed a memo to withdraw the petition. The court dismissed the petition reserving liberty.
Petition dismissed upon withdrawal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.109430/2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.B.NARASIMHULU, S/O. JETTAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHALINI ROADLINES, BELLARY ROAD, SIRAGUPPA-583121, BELLARY DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, & SRI. K.N.SOUBBAREDDY, ADVTS)
AND:
2
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. C.V.ANGADI, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) QUASH THE ENTIRE TENDER PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 13.11.2005 BEARING NO.RCC/SR/KASO/PT/18/15-16 ISOSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 04.10.2016 AS PER LAW AND GIVE HIM SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH HIS OFFER IN NEGOTIATION PROCEEDINGS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO FIX A DATE FOR NEGOTIATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE TENDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A, (II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETTIIONER AS THE ONE UNDER RESERVED CATEGORY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO GIVE PREFERENCE OVER OTHER TRANSPORTERS IN ALLOTTING THE TENDER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FILL THE SC/ST QUOTA BY CONSIDERING THE PETITIONER UNDER THE SAID QUOTA.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed a memo seeking
permission to withdraw the petition.
In view of the memo, the petition is dismissed reserving liberty to challenge the impugned proceedings, if circumstances so warrant, in accordance with law.
Pending I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration, since the petition is dismissed in view of the memo filed by the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
*Svh/-
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. M.B.Narasimhulu
Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
