Allowed

Sri. Venkatalaxmi Transports v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/13272/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to constitute a High Power Committee to settle claims based on a representation dated 01.12.2015 by Respondent No.1. The Court ordered the constitution of the committee within three months without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to constitute a High Power Committee within three months to settle petitioners' claims based on the representation of Respondent No.1 dated 01.12.2015.

Sri. Venkatalaxmi Transports Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP NO.13272 OF 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.13272 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VENKATALAXMI TRANSPORTS TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR, SUDARASHAN COMPLEX, LURDU NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. C. ASHWATHANARAYAN S/O. LATE M. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT NO.81/11, 3^RD FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. M. MUTHURAMAN S/O. S.P. MUTHURAMAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY VIJAYA LORRY TRANSPORT NO.450, 16^TH CROSS, K.T.J NAGAR, DAVANAGERE. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. N. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. LATE E. NARASOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. V. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

WP NO.13272 OF 2017

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, "BEEJA BHAVAN", 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, HEBBALA, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 024.

¶18

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, "AHARA BHAVAN", TANK BUND ROAD, BEHIND AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶19

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND PRESIDENT, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY DR. T. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R3 & R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSTITUTE A HIGH POWER COMMITTEE, TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE REPRESENTATION

¶24

¶25

WP NO.13272 OF 2017

¶26

OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 01^ST DECEMBER, 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

In this writ petition, petitioners have sought for writ of mandamus against the respondent No.3 to settle the claims of petitioners in terms of the representation dated 01^st December, 2015 by the respondent No.1 by constituting High Power Committee.

¶30

I have heard Sri. V. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Dr. T. Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. R.B. Sadasivappa, appearing for the respondent No.2; and Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶31

In view of the fact that the grievance urged by petitioners is to settle their pending bills, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, suffice it if the respondent No.3 is directed to constitute a High Power Committee to settle the claims of petitioners in terms of the

¶32

¶33

WP NO.13272 OF 2017

¶34

representation of respondent No.1 addressed to the respondent No.3 dated 01^st December, 2015. Ordered accordingly. The respondent No.3 shall constitute a High Power Committee within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and take appropriate decision in the matter. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

In view of disposal of the main matter, pending IAs if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

ARK

Sri. Venkatalaxmi Transports v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkatalaxmi Transports v. the Managing Director

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

Sri R Shankarappa Vs the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

A. Krishnappa Vs M.D. Narayanaswamy

M B Shivanna Vs the Tender Inviting Committee

Sri. P a Basheer Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Suryanarayana Rao M Vs the Joint Registrar of

Basavanneppa Kabadagi Vs the State of Karnataka