The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a tender notice as infructuous due to a lapse of three years since the notice period.
The petition was disposed of as having become infructuous.
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.
WP No. 21699 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21699 OF 2019 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND:
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V.VEDAMURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KUMAR, AGA FOR R-2)
WP No. 21699 of 2019
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A MANDAMUS AGAINST THE NOTICE DATED 3.5.2019 AT ANNEXURE - E ISSUED BY R-1 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The challenge in the petition is to the notice dated 03.05.2019, three years have elapsed since the notice inviting tender.
Therefore, by sheer efflux of time, the petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed as having become infructuous .
Sd/JUDGE
JS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a tender notice can be accepted when three years have elapsed.
M. K. Dandeker & Co., Chartered Accountants
Mysore Sales International Ltd.
Secretary, Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
