Allowed

Parking Rhino Online Service Private Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024WP/5640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner awarded a parking contract at Chennakeshava Temple, Belur challenged the respondent's cancellation of the award. Holding the cancellation not legally sustainable, the court quashed it and permitted a fresh order after hearing all stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order (Annexure A) quashed; respondent free to issue fresh order after hearing petitioner and stakeholders; petitioner may continue parking fee collection; pending I.As do not su

Parking Rhino Online Service Private… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:47746 WP No. 5640 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5640 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PARKING RHINO ONLINE SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND SPA HOLDER SURESH RATHOD, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 1391/16/1, 2ND FLOOR, SHREE ARCADE, 19TH MAIN, 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJ PRABHU S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DISTRICT TOURISM DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. REPRESENTED BY IT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HASSAN TALUK HASSAN.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.MAMATHA SHETTY AGA, B.A.RAMAKRISHNA ADV FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT.

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:47746 WP No. 5640 of 2024

¶21

DATED 04.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Following the tender notification issued by Respondent No.3 inviting applications for awarding a contract for the parking space at Chennakeshava Temple, Belur Taluk, Belur, the petitioner participated in the tender process and was declared the successful bidder. Consequently, the contract was awarded to the petitioner on 27.06.2023.

¶26

However, Respondent No.3 subsequently canceled the award, citing that the earlier tender was for a higher price, while the present tender was for a lower price, along with two additional reasons.

¶27

This Court, by order dated 24.04.2024, granted an interim order as prayed for. Subsequently, Respondent No.3 filed a memo seeking disposal of the case, stating that Respondent No.3 may be permitted to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders, including the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:47746 WP No. 5640 of 2024

¶30

In view of the above, the impugned order passed

¶31

by Respondent No.3 canceling the award issued in favor of the petitioner is not legally sustainable.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

¶34

ii. The impugned order dated * 4.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 at Annexure A is hereby quashed.

¶35

iii. The respondent No.3 is at liberty to pass an appropriate order fresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and all the stakeholders.

¶36

iv. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶37

v. Pending I.A's does not survive for consideration.

¶38

It is needles to state that the petitioner is at liberty to continue with the collection of parking fees set aside.

¶39

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶40

TIN

¶41

corrected vide court order dated 9.12.2024

Parking Rhino Online Service Private Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parking Rhino Online Service Private Limited 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Suresh. D. M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sagheer Khan Vs Karnataka State Board of Awqof Darul Awqaf

Shri. H Duggappa Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Ditul Mehta Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Merlyn Mirabel Rozario Vs State of Karnataka

V Vivek Vs the State of Karnataka