Dismissed

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Department of Tourism

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024WP/6633/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a company seeking extension of a lease for 50 years based on a recommendation by officers who were later suspended and dismissed. The court held the petition to be an abuse of process and directed the respondent to issue a fresh tender.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000; respondents directed to issue fresh tender notification.

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Department… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51307 WP No. 6633 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6633 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. YOJAKA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR JAGADISH BOLOOR, NO.3-28/43, ABCO TRADE CENTRE, 2^ND FLOOR, N.H-17, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALORE-575 006

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, "KHANIJA BHAVANA", BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,

¶14

REGIONAL TOURIST OFFICE, MANGALORE-575 003, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶16

AND PRESIDENT / CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TOURISM DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE-575 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:51307 WP No. 6633 of 2019

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. N.B. PATIL, ADDL.GOVT.ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-3 AND R-4; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 08.11.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C FOR EXTENSION OF THE LEASE/CONTRACT PERIOD FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 50 YEARS AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

"a) Issue a writ or order directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's letter dtd. 08.11.2013 vide Annexure-C for extension of the lease/contract period for a further period of 50 years;

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51307 WP No. 6633 of 2019

¶31

b) Set-aside the tender notification dtd. 25.01.2019 published in Udayavani Kannada Daily newspaper dtd.27.01.2019 vide Annexure N;

¶32

c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶33

The petitioner claims for extension of lease for a period of 50 years, on the basis of lease, which had been issued for five years on the basis of the letter issued by the Assistant Director, Government of Karnataka, Tourism Department, Mangaluru, D.K. District, dated 08.11.2013.

¶34

Vide order dated 24.10.2024, this Court had observed that when the lease itself being for a period of five years, the question of the petitioner seeking for extension of lease for a period of 50 years and the same being considered and recommended for extension of lease by 30 years would not arise. As such, the Principal Secretary was directed to initiate an enquiry and submit a report.

¶35

Today, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 has produced a letter

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:51307 WP No. 6633 of 2019

¶38

dated 07.12.2024, stating that the concerned Officers have been suspended and are dismissed.

¶39

The reliefs which have been sought for by the petitioner being on the basis of a letter of recommendation issued by such subsequently suspended and dismissed Officers/employees, are not sustainable. The petition being a complete abuse of the process of law, is dismissed with costs of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the same can be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶40

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents are directed to issue fresh tender notification at the earliest, if not already done, and proceed thereafter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:51307 WP No. 6633 of 2019

¶43

Respondents are also reserved liberty to claim such

¶44

losses as they may establish, in appropriate

¶45

proceedings.

¶46

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed.

¶47

SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

BMV*

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:SNN

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Department of Tourism

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Department of Tourism

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

Smt. Nalini S. Rao Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Mattikote Ashraya Plot Halu Utpadakara Mahila Sahakari Society Ltd., Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri M Vijay Kumar Vs the Managing Director

Almas Education Society Vs the Union of India

Sri B K Suresh Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board