Disposed

A M Basavaraj S/O a M Gurubasaiah v. North East Karnataka Road Transport Corportation

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/100653/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order cancelling a shop allotment. Dismissing the plea to quash, the court held that the petitioner cannot claim a different shop after entering a previous agreement. It directed the respondent to refund the balance after deducting actual rental losses incurred. No statutory provisions cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to refund remaining balance after deducting actual loss suffered due to non-occupancy.

A M Basavaraj S/O a M Gurubasaiah Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 100653 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

A.M. BASAVARAJ S/O. A.M. GURUBASAIAH, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.169/380, 31^ST WARD, 2^ND MAIN, NEHARU COLONY, HOSPET, TALUK: HOSAPETE, DISTRICT: VIJAYNAGAR-583203.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KALABURAGI, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585105.

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, HOSAPETE DIVISION, DISTRICT: VIJAYNAGAR-583201.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/10/2023, BEARING NO.� �� �� �� /1367/2023-24 �� 12/10/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 12/01/2024 BEARING NO.� � �� /1893/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H,; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT THE SHOPS AS PER TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 14/01/2020 BEARING NO. � � �� /2303/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶21

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The relief sought in the present writ petition is to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, to quash the tender notification dated 12.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H and also to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the shops as per tender notification dated 14.01.2020 vide Annexure-A, in the ends of justice.

¶23

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that;

¶24

3.1. This petitioner has participated in the process of tender in view of respondents undertook the

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶26

work of renovation/construction of new bus terminal by demolishing the existing bus shelter for construction of commercial establishment and applied for tender and contributed the initial amount as per the tender notification dated 14.01.2020.

¶27

3.2. The petitioner was allotted the shops and allotment letter was issued to the petitioner, wherein 5 conditions were imposed for payment of contribution amount as per the allotment letter dated 07.03.2020.

¶28

3.3. The renovation was completed and construction of the new building was also completed. The opening ceremony of the bus terminal was held and in the said opening ceremony, actual shop which the petitioner was supposed to be allotted, was not actually allotted and different shops were allotted to them on 12.02.2022 by bypassing the allotment norms and procedures.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶30

3.4. The respondent No.2 then issued an endorsement on 05.07.2022, stating that the tender process was bypassed and shops were allotted.

¶31

3.5. The petitioner on various dates submitted the detailed representation to the respondent No.2 requesting to allot the shops as per tender process and also requested the respondent No.2 to provide basic facilities, such as washroom, drinking water facility and to remove the wall constructed blocking the staircase, but no action is said to have been taken up by respondent No.2.

¶32

3.6. The petitioner again approached respondent No.2 by giving one more representation on 17.08.2023, requesting to allot the shops as per the allotment made in the tender process and respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to pay the monthly licence fee, or else the respondent

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶34

No.2 would proceed to cancel the licence and forfeit the security deposit. The respondent No.2 by an order dated 12.10.2023, pleased to cancel the licence and allotment of the shops and also forfeited the deposit amount by deducting the monthly licence fee.

¶35

3.7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the present petition, contending that, instead of following the tender procedure, he was allotted different shop and the same is against the procedure initiated by the respondents and hence prayed this Court to quash Annexures G and H issued by respondent No.2 and also the tender notification.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents not disputes the issuance of Tender Notification at Annexure-A and also allotment letter at Annexure-B. The counsel would submit that, on the date of inauguration of the building, the dip

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶38

system is adopted and this petitioner also participated in the dip system and got allotted Shop No.14 in his favor and subsequently he also entered into an agreement with the respondents vide agreement dated 16.04.2022. Subsequent to all this process, now the petitioner cannot contend that he is not opting for the Shop No.14. The counsel would also submit that, the notice was also given to the petitioner before cancellation. In spite of that and even after entering into an agreement, the petitioner gave the representations and endorsement also issued on the representations. Suppressing the fact of entering into an agreement, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition seeking the relief in terms of Annexures A and B and hence he is not entitled for the same.

¶39

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, there is no dispute with regard to issuance of Annexure-A and

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶41

also there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of Shop No.23 in favor of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-B. It is also important to note that, at the time of inauguration of the building, instead of considering the allotment as per Annexures A or B, a dip system was adopted and it is also not in dispute that shop No.14 is allotted in favour of the petitioner in the dip system. Subsequently, in terms of the agreement dated 16.04.2022, the petitioner entered into an agreement and he did not occupy shop No.14 consequent upon the agreement executed by him.

¶42

When such being the case, now he cannot seek for allotment of Shop No.23 when he gave consent for getting Shop No.14 and entered agreement.

¶43

The counsel appearing for the respondents also would submit that the petitioner did not occupy the Shop No.14 and hence the Corporation also suffered loss in getting the rent.

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶45

Having taken note of such submission, the respondents can calculate the loss suffered till date in respect of Shop No.14, which the petitioner agreed to take, but they cannot forfeit the entire amount. Even liberty is given to the petitioner to participate in the fresh tender if he really intended to participate and take the shop premises. It is also noticed that the subsequent agreement is suppressed in this writ petition and the same has not been annexed along with the petition and the said agreement came to the light of this Court after the respondents’ counsel placed the said document before this Court.

¶46

Hence, even though the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in view of suppression of the fact, but the respondents can claim only the loss suffered and not more than that. Hence the respondents are directed to refund the remaining amount within two months after deducting the loss which they have suffered in view of the non-occupying of Shop No.14 by the

¶47

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13165 WP No. 100653 of 2024

¶48

petitioner. The relief sought by the petitioner as per

¶49

Annexures A and B cannot be granted in view of the

¶50

fresh agreement is not disputed.

¶51

With this observation, Writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶53

gab ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

A M Basavaraj S/O a M Gurubasaiah v. North East Karnataka Road Transport Corportation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A M Basavaraj S/O a M Gurubasaiah v. North East Karnataka Road Transport Corportation

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

Shri Balu S/O Venku Sawant Vs Shri Dinkar S/O Gopal Chavan

Rajansa S/O Shrikanth Patil Vs Mohansa @ Mohan S/O Shrikanth Patil

M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries Vs M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad Vs Pandugouda S/Ov Enkanagouda Patil

Sandeep S/O Sanjivappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Santosh Laxman Raikar Vs the Commissioner