Writ petition challenging a tender notification clause was dismissed as infructuous after counsel for both parties stated that subsequent developments rendered the prayer 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 2583 OF 2020 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. CHITHARA B.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:27694 WP No. 2583 of 2020
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573219.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1; SRI PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DELETE CLAUSE No.4.2 IN ANNEXURE-B THE TENDER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-3.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND )
Learned counsel appearing for the parties on both sides
fairly submit that in view of subsequent developments, the
prayer in the writ petition renders infructuous.
Submission placed on record.
Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. K. Suresh
State of Karnataka, PWD Department
The Managing Director, Viswesvaraya Jala Nigama Ltd.
The Executive Engineer, Viswesvaraya Jala Nigama Ltd., Yettinahole Project Division No.3
The Superintending Engineer, Viswesvaraya Jala Nigama Ltd., Yettinahole Project Circle No.1
K. V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
