M/S Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Department of Tourism

M/S. YOJAKA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR JAGADISH BOLOOR, NO.3-28/43, ABCO TRADE CENTRE, 2^ND FLOOR, N.H17, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALORE - 575 006

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. YOGEENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

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

¶15

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM REGIONAL TOURIST OFFICE MANAGALORE - 575 003

¶16

REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

¶17

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

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9015-DB WA No. 1894 of 2024

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.6633/2019 (GM-RES) DATED 12.12.2024, SUSPEND THE COST IMPOSED AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶28

The prayer before learned Single Judge of the appellant-

¶29

original petitioner was to consider the petitioner's letter dated 08.11.2013, whereby the request of the petitioner was to extend

¶30

the lease/contract period for a further period of fifty years. It was next prayed to set aside the tender notification dated 25.01.2019 which was published in the Daily Newspaper on 27.01.2019.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9015-DB WA No. 1894 of 2024

¶32

Learned Single Judge noticing the relevant aspect that the lease of the petitioner itself had expired since the same was for the period of five years, stated that the question of seeking extension of lease for fifty years did not arise. While the petitioner relied on the letter of the Assistant Director, Government of Karnataka, Tourism Department, Mangaluru Taluka, Dakshina Kannada District, dated 08.11.2013 which recommended for extension, learned Single Judge has directed the Principal Secretary to initiate the inquiry and submit a report as to how the such recommendation could be made when the lease period had expired.

¶33

While dismissing the petition with cost of Rs.1 lakh, the respondent-authorities were directed to issue fresh tender notification at the earliest and proceed thereafter in accordance with law. The respondents were also put at liberty to claim such losses by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶34

On consideration of facts and the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kiran S. Javali for learned advocate Mr. B. Yogeendra Achar for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish, the court does not find any infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge, however, imposition

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:9015-DB WA No. 1894 of 2024

¶37

of cost of Rs.1 lakh could be said to be harsh. Therefore, the cost part is removed and the direction to pay the cost is set aside.

¶38

The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to deletion of costs.

¶39

At this stage, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in the fresh tender which may be issued by the respondentauthorities, the petitioner-appellant may be permitted to be participated.

¶40

It is observed that the appellant may participate in such tender process which may be initiated afresh in accordance with law, if eligible.

¶41

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶44

CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.R. Basavarajappa Vs State of Karnataka

The High Court Legal Services Committee Vs the State of Karnataka

G Shivaramaiah Vs Sri. Ritesh Kumar Singh

Sri M H Krishnegowda Vs Sri R J Kantharaju

Sri. Lokesh. v. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen Das Vs the Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd.