Dismissed

K Nataraj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2022WP/50802/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judge dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the petition had become infructuous as the subject tenders were more than seven years old and had already been accomplished by other contracts.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off as having become infructuous; liberty to work out other remedies reserved; costs granted.

K Nataraj Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.50802 OF 2015 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.NATARAJ, S/O B.KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O MANJUNATHA NILAYA, NO.583, 10^TH CROSS, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN-573201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.VENKATARAMANA K.S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560052.

¶13

K.M.VIRUPAKSHA, S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE:MAJOR, C/O BHAGHYALAKSHMI TRANSPORT, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 NOT TO CONSIDER THE BID OF R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.9.2015 BY E-TENDER VIDE ANNEXUREA AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARINGB GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Learned AGA appearing for the State submits that the tenders in question being more than seven years old, the subject tenders having already been accomplished by other contracts, the matter has become infructuous. There is none from the side of the petitioner to controvert the said submission.

¶21

In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off as having become infructuous, reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out other remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.

¶22

¶23

It hardly needs to be mentioned that the period spent in prosecuting this Writ Petition shall be discounted while computing the period of limitation prescribed by law for availing such remedies, all contentions are kept open.

¶24

Costs made easy.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

cbc

K Nataraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Nataraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Divya Chinnappa Vs Sri Paul Jose

V K Tikare Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. v a Lakshmi Vs Sri v Anjinappa

The Management Comittee Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Ganesh Vs Sri P Anjinappa

Mrs Manjula M R Vs the Authorised Officer