Allowed

Sri Ranganth Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021WP/2099/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for certiorari, the petitioner sought to quash a letter directed to cancel their security services contract. The High Court quashed the letter, ruling it could not survive independently as it was based on a previously quashed order from W.P. No. 10485/2019.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued quashing the letter dated 16.01.2020 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A.

Sri Ranganth Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P. No.2099 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.2099 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RANGANATH ENTERPRISES APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU-570001, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. SHASHIKANTH M.D. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH.R.B., ADVOCATE-PH)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY-01

¶13

COMMISSIONER, KARMIKA BHAVAN BANNARGATTA, BENGALURU-560076

¶14

THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570001 … RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. S.R. KAMALACHARAN, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS/STATE-PH)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER/LETTER DATED 16.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

W.P. No.2099 OF 2020

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the orders/letter dated 16.01.2020 issued by respondent No.2 at

¶22

Annexure-A.

¶23

By way of the said letter at Annexure-A, the respondent No.2 directed the Director/Dean of K.R.Hospital, Mysore to cancel the contract/tender for providing security services issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner is a private concern carrying on the business of providing security services, helpers, Group-C and D to different organisations. It is stated that once earlier certain persons and organisations who are inimically disposed towards the petitioner had filed a false complaint, on which basis Director of Industries, Department of Industries had vide its letter dated 27.03.2018

¶25

W.P. No.2099 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

written to various Officers stating that no tenders

¶28

should be allotted to the petitioner. In view thereof, the petitioner had challenged the same by way of W.P.No.10485/2019 and this Court vide its order dated 30.5.2018 had quashed the said letter dated 23.07.2018 holding the same would amount to blacklisting and the said letter had been quashed.

¶29

Now once again the aforesaid endorsement dated 16.01.2020 has been issued by respondent No.3, Addl. Labour Court, Mysore Division relying on the very same letter dated 23.07.2018 which had been addressed by the Director of Industries to the Labour Commissioner, who apparently has forwarded the same to respondent No.3 herein. Since the basis of issuance of Annexure-A is letter dated 23.07.2018 which has been quashed in W.P.No.10485/2019, the said Annexure-A would

¶30

not survive independently and is required to be

¶31

W.P. No.2099 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

quashed. As such a certiorari is issued quashing the letter dated 16.01.2020 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A.

¶34

Liberty is however reserved to the respondents and or other officers to initiate such action as is permissible in accordance with law by following due process of law.

¶35

Petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sri Ranganth Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ranganth Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashidhar M Halyal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Annapoornamma and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Murigeppa Gouda S/O Annarao Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Smt Jayamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mr Virendra Khanna Vs State of Karnataka by

The Management of M/S Ultratech Cement Limited Vs Rajashree Cement General Workers and Anr.